Preamble

The House met a half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 7 February.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 7 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police Custody (Deaths)

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into deaths in police custody.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): As the hon. Member is aware, I have asked chief officers of police for further detailed information. I will make it available to him as soon as possible, and will consider what further action, if any, may be appropriate.

Mr. Meacher: Since the original police version of the death of Jimmy Kelly was that he died of a heart attack, and since the full facts have emerged only because a local action committee happened to be set up, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that public disquiet about whether there are other Jimmy Kelly-type cases concealed beneath the bland statistics

will be stilled only by a proper public inquiry into these 245 deaths, especially since, in 10 per cent. of cases, there was no inquest, and, even when there was an inquest, in 15 cases there was an open verdict, including five cases of fractured skulls?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be improper for me to make any comment on the Jimmy Kelly case in view of the forthcoming inquest. To that, I must stick. I do not believe that when we have considered the matter carefully—I understand that the Select Committee on Home Affairs is to consider it—it will be found necessary to have a public inquiry. At present, however, I must make no further comment pending the inquest which, I believe, is the first and proper legal proceeding.

Mr. Edward Gardner: Whatever may be the reason for the present question, does not my right hon. Friend agree that recent and well-publicised suggestions made by some Opposition Members that the police may have been responsible for deaths in custody, that the Director of Public Prosecutions has neglected his duties to prosecute and that chief constables may have exceeded theirs, are all signs of a rather nasty and damaging campaign aimed at undermining the authority of those responsible for law and order?

Mr. Whitelaw: There must, in all these cases, be absolutely no question of a cover-up of any sort. Nor, so long as I am Home Secretary, will there be any question of that. I would also suggest that, if there should be no cover-up, there is the other point that there should be no witch-hunt. It is only fair to police officers that they should be treated like other citizens and that they should not be condemned before anything has been found against them.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In judging the seriousness of these statistics will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the startling contrast with the facts that in Northern Ireland, over the last 10 years, despite everything else, there has been only one death in police custody?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman says. I had some knowledge of that myself. I appreciate exactly the point that he makes.

Mr. Emery: Has my right hon. Friend had drawn to his attention the attack on the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall? Does he realise that this is very much resented by most people living in the area who believe that the chief constable has contributed more towards achieving co-operation between the community and the police than probably any other chief constable in the country?

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to comment upon what hon. Members say in the House. It is for them to substantiate what they say. My impression of the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, made at first hand when I visited his force, conforms exactly with the view of my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is held in high regard in Devon and Cornwall and that he is carrying out a system of policing that many people strongly favour.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Home Secretary recognise, unlike his hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), that in my speech last Friday I said just that about the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall? In relation to the wider question, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what concerns people are not the details of individual deaths, but whether the system as a whole needs looking at? It is for that reason that hon. Members are calling for a public inquiry. There is genuine public concern. No one is involved in a witch-hunt. No one wants to get at any individual constable. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern that can be dealt with only by a public inquiry?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, I noticed that the hon. Member said that in his speech. I did him the courtesy of reading his speech. But the fact remains that he cast aspersions on the way in which the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall was carrying out his duties. I do not accept those aspersions. On the hon. Member's other point, I believe that the process of going through inquests, which we follow at present, is the right approach, and I hope that it will be proved to be so in some of the cases that are coming up.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if I had to advise my constituents about who was most likely to

give them a fair hearing—Mr. Alderson and Mr. Anderton on the one hand, or the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and York (Mr. Lyon) on the other—I would unhesitatingly choose the former two? Would he wish to disabuse me in respect of that advice?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would be much safer for me neither to agree nor disagree. Perhaps I might have a personal prejudice, which is probably very well known.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Secretary of State aware that we strongly support his statement about the way in which he sees his role as Home Secretary? Does he realise that we are glad that information will be given to the Select Committee, because the position certainly needs clarification before any further allegations are made? Is he aware that there is still one point of concern? I believe that the names of those involved in these cases should not be bandied about unless the families concerned have given their permission. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are times when families do not want this knowledge bandied about and it is only courteous to ask their permission first?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that last point. I specificaly said that I would make this detailed information available to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), because he had specifically asked me for it. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West makes these names public, that is his responsibility. If the House told me that I should make the names public I should hope that before it did it would consider very carefully the position of the relatives. In certain cases it would be possible to cause distress quite unwittingly.

Latin America

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about Government policy regarding entry to the United Kingdom of people from Latin America.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Wolver Hampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards) on 25 January.

Mr. Canavan: Quite apart from the unjustifiably harsh decision to stop Latin American refugees from coming into this country, will the Minister investigate alleged discrimination by immigration officials against people coming from Latin America to this country, even for a short holiday? In particular, will he ensure a fair hearing for the relatives of a constituent of mine, Mr. Max Flores, who were sent home by,immigration officials after spending more than £1,700 on the fare from Chile to Gatwick?

Mr. Raison: On the first point about the harshness of our decision, I must point out that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, addressing his executive committee in Geneva last October, indicated that there was no longer a continuing need for a resettlement programme for Latin American refugees and that individual cases should be dealt with as they arose. That is now our policy.
The case of Mr. Flores was considered under the old criteria and it did not meet them. If the hon. Member wants any further information I shall write to him about the matter.

Mr. Stanbrook: A great deal has been made of this question. Can my hon. Friend tell us how many such people have applied for entry to this country recently?

Mr. Raison: During the four months before the announcement was made, there were 41 applications. Since the announcement was made at the end of October there has been none.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the United Nations report by the special rapporteur, is it not absolute nonsense to say that there is no longer a need for resettlement? Is the Minister aware that the report indicated that oppression continues in Chile and the situation is worse than it was before? Therefore, will he not agree it is absolutely vital that we should assist those refugees who wish to come to this country?

Mr. Raison: Of course I do not accept that what I have just said is nonsense. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees originally asked us to initiate a programme in 1973 when there was a considerable need. We met that request. He now tells us that there is no need for a continuing programme and we have accepted his advice.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Member assure the House that, in future, cases will be individually looked at by a Minister and not done officially? Will the Home Office publish quarterly numbers of all applications made to come to this country from Latin America, and the numbers of applications agreed to?

Mr. Raison: I shall consider the second point. On the first point, it sems reasonable that we should treat Latin American refugees on the same basis—that is on a compassionate basis—as refugees from the rest of the world.

Police (Height)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the regulations on the minimum height of policemen to bring them into line with that for policewomen at approximately 5 ft 4 ins.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): No, Sir. I see no reason to change the present minimum height standards.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the Minister accept that these types of regulations are a restriction on police recruitment and that height is irrelevant to the majority of police duties? Will he not agree that if a 5 ft. 4 in. woman is capable of patrolling the streets at night, it is absurd that, in our unisex police force, a man of 5 ft. 7 in. should be ineligible?

Mr. Brittan: That is not the view of the police service as a whole. On the question of recruiting generally, we must take account of the fact that today, of the 43 forces in England and Wales, only six have deficiencies of more than 5 per cent. in their authorised establishment. Most have significantly reduced their deficiencies in the last 18 months. I do not think that any recruitment considerations would lead to a change.

Mr. George Cunningham: In view of the well-publicised remarks of the chief constable of Manchester, that he is faced with the dilemma of either breaking the equal opportunities law or relentlessly filling up his police force with women police constables, will the Minister of State confirm the view that is obviously taken by other chief constables, that they are not faced with any such dilemma?

Mr. Brittan: I have no doubt that the chief constable of Manchester is in a better position than I am to say whether he is faced with a dilemma of any kind. I am sure that he will observe the law.

Junior Detention Centres

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been or is being consulted about the planned new regime of short, sharp shock treatment at several junior detention centres.

Mr. Whitelaw: Staff organisations concerned have been invited to discuss the planning of the project and a meeting has been held with the Prison Officers Association. The education authorities of Surrey and Wakefield have been offered meetings about the educational aspects of the regime. The services concerned are being consulted about arrangements for after-care supervision.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of concern about this scheme, including among the staff of the prison service? Is he also aware that there is a difference between regimes that are tough and those that are degrading to the individual? Will he make the results of any representations available to hon. Members?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have no reason to suppose that there have been great pressures against the scheme from the staff, as the hon. Member suggests. I believe that many staff welcome the idea. As for the regimes, I have no intention of making them degrading and I am quite determined that this shall not happen.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the Home Secretary aware that many of the staff at penal establishments are bitterly opposed to the introduction of the scheme? Does he not consider it unfair that, as the experiment will be applied only to two geographical areas of the country, individual boys who have committed the same crime will, in effect, get a different sentence depending on whether they are to be sent to Send detention centre or New Hall or another detention centre? Is that not unfair? Also, is it not inappropriate that there will be no screening of those who are physically tough or mentally unable to take the tough, sharp, short shock?

Mr. Whitelaw: There will be screening—I make that absolutely clear to the hon. Member. Naturally, the intake into these centres will be based upon geographical location—that is inevitable. If, as I confidently believe—and Labour Members seem determined that this will not happen—these regimes are a success, there will be wider opportunities for other centres throughout the country.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Secretary of State aware that the regime at Send detention centre is already extremely strict? In what new way will the regime there be made more harsh and rigorous? Will the staff be specially selected and trained so that they become experts in inflicting a short, sharp shock?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, that will not be the case. There will be considerably more drill than in the past. I do not accept that the system was particularly harsh. There will be significant changes and they will come to light when the regimes come into operation.

Telephone Tapping

Mr. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide statutory provision for telephone tapping.

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall deal with this matter when I report to the House—I hope before very long—the outcome of the study of the issues raised in the case of Malone v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Mr. Cook: Has the Home Secretary had drawn to his attention the report in New Statesman today? If so, does he appreciate that the report of widespread phone tapping will cause a real sense of outrage in that the Government should be mounting such an operation without statutory authority and with no safeguards approved by Parliament? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Post Office requires equipment simultaneously to monitor 1,000 private lines when the Birkett report said that there were only 200 phone taps in any one year? Does he not appreciate that with technical development of this nature, a quarter of a century after Birkett, it is time that we had a further public inquiry into the nature of phone tapping and a report to this House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, undertaken to make a report to this House very shortly. On the other point, I must say to the House that the interception of postal and telephone communications is a vital weapon in combating serious crime, including drug smuggling and terrorism. It is carried out by the Post Office on behalf of the police, Customs and Excise and the security service, only on the authority of individual warrants signed personally by the Secretary of State.
I would like to make it clear that the Government, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest, are carrying out exactly the same procedures, in exactly the same way, as their predecessors.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That is just as bad.

Mr. Whitelaw: I may add to that that I have seen suggestions that the Secretary of State of the day does not take this duty seriously and is not involved seriously.

Mr. Cook: I did not say that.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) asked if I had had my attention drawn to the article in New Statesman. Of course I have and of course I have read it. I am quoting from some of the things contained in that article which, as Secretary of State, I think that I am entitled to rebut. I know how seriously my predecessor took this matter and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take it seriously, too. It is a responsibility which no Member of this House would particularly like to bear. It is in the national interest that the Home Secretary should have that responsibility and he must conduct it personally and with very great care.

Mr. Dickens: Does the Home Secretary accept that many people are dreadfully worried about surveillance techniques, be they bugging, telephone tapping or interference with the Royal Mail? Will he also concede that there are many Members in this House who feel that the Birkett Report is now inadequate and needs revision? Will the Home Secretary consider a possible Bill of Rights to protect individuals in this country if more information comes forward within the next three weeks in addition to what has already been revealed?

Mr. Whitelaw: I take most careful note of what my hon. Friend says. Every Government, over a long period of time must strike a proper balance between two considerations which are sometimes in conflict. The first is the national interest and the protection of our citizens in every way. The second is the need to protect individual rights. That balance must be kept. Over a period of time Governments have given that responsibility, in the national interest, to the Home Secretary of the day. I repeat that it is a major responsibility to carry out, but I shall certainly do my best.

Mr. Golding: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Post Office Engineering Union would welcome a fullinquiry into the allegations of phone tapping, in the firm belief that such an inquiry would clear Post Office engineers of any charges of acting improperly?

Mr. Whitelaw: In view of his position of responsibility I must take note of what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has said.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the majority of people regard these operations as an essential element in the broad spectrum of law enforcement; that they welcome the fact that they are, evidently, being carried out so efficiently and that they would deplore anything which led to any impairment?

Mr. Whitelaw: Naturally, successive Governments have believed that in the modern world—in the face of terrorism and many other sophisticated crimes—this action is necessary in the national interest. That is why they have stuck to the principles. I believe that these principles are in the national interest. I can only repeat firmly what I have said. It is the job of the Home Secretary and this House has placed that responsibility on me.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I can confirm the basic point, which is that all telephone tapping is for the personal decision of the Home Secretary? Decisions are not taken nominally, as was suggested in today's report. Since the right hon. Gentleman has said that he was coming to the end of his consideration of the legal implications of the Malone judgment—and in accord with the judgment I gave to the House of Commons last year that


the time had come for another Birkett type report—may I ask him to report orally to the House when he has come to a conclusion?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes Sir. I most certainly will do that.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Home Secretary understand that the need for this kind of surveillance is not being challenged? Nor is his diligence. Is he aware that what concerns the House, I believe, is that it appears that there has been a dramatic increase in the need for this kind of surveillance in the last 20 years? If that is so I think that the House is entitled to know the scale of that activity.

Mr. Whitelaw: In the national interest successive Governments have never given any figures on this matter. We have always stuck within the terms of the Birkett report. However, I shall certainly note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Charity Commissioners

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when last he met the chief Charity Commissioner.

Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend has not yet had occasion to meet the chief Charity Commissioner, but I met him last September.

Mr. Price: When will the Home Office respond to the Select Committee, which reported five years ago, in view of the alleged patent abuse of charity law by the Rossminster Group of Companies, the public schools and institutions such as the London clinic? The all-party Select Committee commented on that abuse. When will the Government say what their views are on this matter? When the Home Secretary next meets the commissioner will he tell him to stop harassing Oxfam and Christian Aid, preventing those charities from carrying out their proper duties? Will the Home Secretary—as recommended by the Select Committee—ask the Charity Commission to survey those charities that are abusing the law?

Mr. Raison: As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) on 24 January, the pro-

posals made by the Expenditure Committee and the Goodman committee have to be viewed in the light of the Government's current policies. We have considered the existing system against this background and, in the light of the recommendations of these committees, we believe that it works adequately. I should add that the Goodman committee made quite clear its view that deprivation of charitable status should not be used as a way of attacking private education.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is it not a worrying development that the Charity Commission, and ultimately the courts, have ruled in the case of one sector of the Strict Brethren that it is not a religion? Should not a decision such as that be left to the views of honest believers rather than being taken either by administrative civil servants or the courts?

Mr. Raison: It is not the job of my right hon. Friend to make decisions about the verdicts of the Charity Commissioners. They are subject to the courts. I believe that that is a much better way of dealing with it.

Police (Corruption Allegations)

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with present arrangements for investigating allegations of corruption against members of police forces; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitelaw: The Police Complaints Board is due to report to me by 1 June on its review of the working of the relevant part of the Police Act 1976. I intend to await that report before considering what changes, if any, are necessary in the arrangements for dealing with complaints against the police.

Mr. Straw: Does the Home Secretary agree that confidence in the present arrangements has hardly been helped by the extraordinary decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to transfer the investigation of a serious allegation by Miss Vivienne Wilde, against a senior officer of Scotland Yard, away from the Operation Countryman investigation back to Scotland Yard? Does he agree that the day-to-day involvement of the Director of Public Prosecutions in investigations of this kind compromises the Director's position as an independent


prosecuting authority? Do not the arrangements for the investigation of serious crime against the police—particularly given its deep and institutionalised nature—in parts of the Metropolitan force need to be reviewed urgently?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member knows, in the first case, that the proceedings in Operation Countryman were set up by my predecessor. We must allow those investigations to continue and provide every possible support. I believe that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and myself are providing that support. On the particular point made by the hon. Gentleman, I do not wish to comment—I do not think it would he proper for me to do so—on the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. George Cunningham: In view of press reports that there is interference with the progress of the Operation Countryman investigation, will the right hon. Gentleman state categorically that no interference and no impediment to that investigation will be tolerated in any quarter and that it will be pursued to the end?

Mr. Whitelaw: I gladly add my voice to that of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis when he spoke in Glasgow recently and said just that. I support him fully in what he said.

Mr. Cryer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a form of corruption in the secret agencies would exist if only one warrant, authorised by the Secretary of State, was used for a multiplicity of telephone tapping? Will he assure the House that that is not the position? However, if it is the case, will he pursue the combating of this form of corruption rigorously and ensure that there is proper and full accountability to the Secretary of State and to the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has referred back to another question. I shall take refuge—having given some full and candid answers—in saying that it would not be in the national interest for me to make any further comments.

Immigration Rules

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further representations he has received over the new immigration rules.

Mr. Raison: We continue to receive representations on various aspects of our proposed changes in the immigration rules.

Mr. Winnick: Are the Government now seriously reconsidering the proposed changes in the immigration rules? If so, would it not be best to resist some of the backwoodsmen on the Conservative Benches and their leading voice in the Cabinet—namely, the Prime Minister—on this issue?

Mr. Raison: No. The rules will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: What weight has my hon. Friend given to the high-powered legal evidence that was given recently on male fiances? Is there not a real danger that the Government will get themselves into hot water when the issue is brought before the European Convention? Are we not storing up trouble on an international scale?

Mr. Raison: No. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 4 December, we believe that we have strong arguments to justify our proposals, if they are challenged.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the Minister agree that there is now a complete breakdown between the liaison of the Home Office with the aliens division and local police forces? Does he accept that correspondence taking place between Home Office Ministers and Members of Parliament is now completely ignored by policemen, who now demand that they take action irrespective of the Home Office? Is he further aware that, in reply to my questions, Home Office officials have said that they are completely impotent to intervene in arrests enacted by the aliens division for the police? Is not that evidence supported by the case of a 72-year-old lady in my constituency, who had a bag put over her head, was arrested and taken to Holloway Prison, where she will remain until she leaves this country? Is that not an absolute disgrace? How either the Home Secretary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be fair. He has taken a long time. I allowed him extra time, but he has asked enough now.

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have only reached question No. 8. That slow rate of progress is due to long supplementary questions.

Mr. Atkinson: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but there are a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have asked extremely lengthy questions In this instance, the whole of our society is at risk and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his question quite clear.

Mr. Raison: We do not control the operations of the police. It seems that the hon. Gentleman's allegations are completely wild and unsubstantiated.

Prisoners (Costs)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current annual cost of keeping a person in prison.

Mr. Brittan: The average annual cost of keeping a person in prison in England and Wales during 1978–79 was £5,894.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the cost of incarceration is rising to a point where there is a pressing need to remove classes of petty offender from imprisonment? What steps is his Department taking to bring that about?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. We are considering ways in which that may be done, especially for those who find themselves imprisoned primarily as a result of drunkeness. Another aspect in dealing with the problem is the length of sentence. I stress again, as many have stressed in the past, that except for those who require a lengthy period of imprisonment because of the gravity of their crime, shorter terms of imprisonment are equally effective deterrents and punishments.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, despite the figure that he has produced, which seems high per person, conditions are extremely bad in some of our prisons—for example, Armley prison in my constituency, where because of the lack of resources many prisoners are being con-

fined to their cells for almost 24 hours a day? That situation creates many tensions. When will resources be increased to get rid of such conditions which exist in many of our prisons?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that conditions of that sort cannot, and should not, be defended. The extent to which it is possible to deal with them must depend on the present building programme, which is being considered in the light of the recommendations of the May committee, and on the success of the efforts that we are making to ensure that those who do not need to be in prison are not in prison.

Mr. Lawrence: Does the figure that my hon. and learned Friend has given include social security costs for the maintenance of the wives and families of prisoners? Is he giving attention to the possibilities of extending the work provision availability in prison and to paying prisoners a reasonable sum for the work that they do so that they may repay some of the cost of their incarceration?

Mr. Brittan: The figure does not include social security costs. The more that we pay prisoners the greater the cost, in a way, per prisoner to the system. The improvement of the quality and extent of the work done by prisoners is something with which we are concerned and which we are considering.

Dr. Summerskill: Bearing in mind the complex nature of the subject, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is essential that the House has an opportunity to debate the May report and the excellent and valuable report of the Expenditure Committee dealing with the reduction of pressure on the prison system? Will his right hon. Friend make strong representations to the Leader of the House to the effect that we should have an early and urgent debate on the prison system?

Mr. Brittan: Yes.

Immigration

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, further to the statement of the Minister of State,Official Report,

Mr. Raison: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Mitchell: I am not surprised. Is it not a fact that immigration officers at the ports of entry are reluctant to allow anybody to enter as a visitor if there is even a suspicion of a forthcoming marriage? In view of the statements made by the Home Secretary during the recent debate on immigration, will new directions and new advice be issued to the immigration officers at the ports of entry?

Mr. Raison: No, Sir. The onus, as always, will be on the passenger to satisfy the immigration officer that he will leave at the end of his visit. I see no need to change the instructions.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my hon. Friend concerned about the latest recorded figures of those trying to settle in Britain, which are the highest for years? When does he expect to bring some new, tighter rules before the House?

Mr. Raison: As I have already said, we intend to publish our final version of the immigration rules in the near future.

Mr. Leighton: Would it not be possible for people entering this country on temporary visits to have their passports withheld and for registrars to be instructed not to marry anyone without a passport?

Mr. Raison: I shall consider that suggestion and write to the hon. Gentleman. I have my doubts about it.

Mr. Scott: Is my hon. Friend intending to give a considered reply to the evidence of Lord Scarman to the Select Committee in which he advised that, on the proposal concerning male fiances, we would be in breach of our international obligations?

Mr. Raison: We have given evidence to that Committee. As I have said, we believe that we have a good case that will stand up to any challenge in the European Court.

Fire Precautions Act 1971

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Fire Precautions Act 1971.

Mr. Brittan: The working of the Act is currently under review by the appro-

priate sub-committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. We shall consider the need for change in the light of whatever recommendations may be made.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that in most areas of the country nearly all hotels and boarding houses have been inspected and that the majority have been certified? Will he also consider designating further uses of premises to come under the Fire Precautions Act in some parts of the countrry ahead of others in relation to the progress they have made under existing designation orders?

Mr. Brittan: What my hon. Friend has said about hotels and boarding houses is correct. Tribute should be paid to the considerable efforts made by the fire service and the hoteliers and proprietors of boarding houses. We are still considering further designations in different parts of the country. We had an opportunity to go into that matter at greater length last Monday during my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate but we are not yet in a position to make any announcement.

Mr. Parry: Has the Under-Secretary of State recently received a letter from the chief fire officer of the Merseyside county fire brigade, criticising the design of St George's shopping precinct in Liverpool, which was recently destroyed by fire? Will he consider giving greater powers to chief fire officers to enable them to enforce fire regulations in large shopping precincts? Will he also consider making it compulsory to install fire sprinkler systems in large shopping precincts?

Mr. Brittan: I shall look into the matter of the shopping precinct and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Unconvicted Prisoners

Mr. Wheeler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to cope with the rising number of unconvicted adults held on remand from London and the home counties; and whether he proposes to


provide additional secure prison accommodation in London to assist with this problem.

Mr. Brittan: The causes of pressure on remand accommodation in London and the South-East are complex; they include the shortage of suitable accommodation, the number of prisoners remanded in custody by the courts and the time taken for defendants to come to trial. We are reviewing the accommodation available in the light of the recommendations in the May report, and we are discussing the other matters with the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Mr. Wheeler: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Is he aware that there are approximately 5,500 remand prisoners in the prison system of whom 1,200 are in Brixton prison? Is there not an urgent need for a new remand prison within the Greater London area?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The pressure in Brixton prison is indeed great and something should be done about it. I have hopes that it will be possible to make room for more remand prisoners in Pentonville. Whether and when that can be done is dependent on several factors, including refurbishing and security work.

Mr. Edward Lyons: In view of the fact that most of our prisons become schools for crime for those who enter them with little criminal experience. would it not be a better way of tackling the problem to hasten the trials of the people in custody and look to the court system as a method of quicker despatch, so that we do not need more prisons?

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with that.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that one important way of speeding up important trials is to abolish the presumption of innocence from silence and introduce tape recorded interviews with police officers?

Mr. Brittan: Those matters are being considered by the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, but my hon. Friend will know that the first of those recommendations will meet with substantial objections of principle.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will the Minister explain how a known psychopath was

allocated to the cell of a young offender who had been convicted of a petty offence? Is he inquiring into this, to ensure that such a disgraceful state of affairs does not occur again?

Mr. Brittan: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are inquiring into that incident.

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to meet the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Mr. Whitelaw: I expect to meet him soon.

Mr. Temple-Morris: When my right hon. Friend meets the Commissioner will he remind him of the prompt way in which we fulfilled our election commitment on police pay? In view of the considerable problems with recruitment for the Metropolitan Police in the recent past will he ask the Commissioner what the position is?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think I should need to remind the Commissioner about the first point made by my hon. Friend. On the second point, at the end of December the strength of the Metropolitan Police was 22,528, which was a gain of 567 during 1979. That is very encouraging. It is still short of the establishments, but it has been welcomed throughout the Metropolis.

Mr. Christopher Price: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Commissioner, will he discuss with him the new developments in the Confait case, particularly in the light of the minimal compensation given to the three original defendants who were a quitted in this murder case? Now that new information has come forward which might completely reverse the judgment of the Fisher tribunal, will the right hon. Gentleman review the whole matter, including the compensation awarded?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it would be right for me to consider first what the hon. Gentleman has put to me before putting it to the Commissioner. But, of course, I shall consider it myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUANGOS

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Prime Minister what action she proposes to take on the "Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies."

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) on 16 January, the Government endorse the proposals for the future set out in Sir Leo Pliatzky's excellent report. I have set in hand the steps necessary to implement them.

Mr. Evans: Does the right hon. Lady agree that, despite the propaganda about quangos put out by the Conservative Party before the general election, this report fully justifies the good public work done by the people serving on these nominated bodies? In view of the fact that many thousands of people give their services free, will the right hon. Lady pay tribute to their work and ensure that these bodies have the public funds they need to perform their tasks—especially the NEB and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies—thus minimising the untold damage inflicted by this Government's ecomonic and financial policies?

The Prime Minister: I think that what the report did was to show that a large numbers of quangos can be weeded out, and were, in fact, terminated, with a saving of about 3,700 appointments and, in the end, a good deal of money. The report also showed that a number of other quangos must continue and I gladly pay tribute to the people who work in those.

Mr. Marks: Is the Prime Minister aware that the abolition of the Clean Air Council will be considered by many as evidence that the Government do not propose to do much about air pollution in the next few years? Is the right hon. Lady aware that for £15,000 a year the Government received a great deal of expert advice and work? Will she tell her right hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to take that clause out of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It is a mistake to think that we need to have

an advisory council on everything to get Government to take action. Sometimes such bodies can slow it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Freud: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Freud: Between her meetings I wonder whether the Prime Minister would care to drive down Ebury Bridge Road and to try, if she can, to enter a building marked "P.O./T.H.Q. O.P.D/E.D.D." so that she can tell the House exactly what is going on?

The Prime Minister: The answer is "No, Sir." I have nothing to add to the excellent replies given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this matter.

Sir Graham Page: Having regard to the report that yesterday in Cheshire a lorry driver was struck in the face by a stone thrown from a picket line, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister take the opportunity today to confirm the excellent statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on television last night, in which he said that tougher proposals would be brought forward to control picketing? Will she confirm that that is Government policy?

The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was last night referring to proposals that arose out of the judgment in the McShane case, its effect upon trade union immunities, and his intention to bring forward proposals because he felt that trade union immmunities went too wide at the moment. With respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that most of the proposals on picketing are already in the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Winnick: Are not the allegations on telephone tapping that are contained in the press reports disturbing? Is there not a need for the right hon. Lady to


satisfy the House that there is effective political control over the security services?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to say that there is effective political control over the security services. I have made that clear in previous debates. There is also effective ministerial control over the subject of telephone interception.

Mr. Dover: Has the Prime Minister studied recent reports to the effect that there is a shortage of staff in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and is she worried that that may delay the recently announced nuclear programme? Will she arrange, if necessary, secondment of staff from other Departments?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the work done by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is highly specialised. I was not aware that there was a shortage of staff. Its work is extremely important, and we would never go ahead with a particular nuclear power station or system without safety clearance from the inspectorate. I shall look into the points that my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the right hon. Lady assure us that telephones of right hon. and hon. Members are not tapped?

The Prime Minister: It is exactly the same practice that was announced under the Prime Ministership of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). All Governments have followed that practice since. There has been no change whatsoever.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR SECURITY

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what discussions she has had with Chancellor Schmidt on security arrangements at the Joint Centrifuge Centre, at URENCO Almelo, Holland, run by Great Britain, West Germany and Holland, in the light of the Khan incident, involving nuclear proliferation in the Arab world.

The Prime Minister: None, but we remain in close touch with the German and Netherlands Governments about the follow-up to the Khan affair.

Mr. Dalyell: What assurances have the Germans given that they will do everything possible to stop their sophisti-

cated industries from exporting items such as inverters, which make possible a nuclear capacity for developing countries?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any particular assurance given through the joint committee. The hon. Gentleman knows of the concern of all who are connected with the centrifuge enrichment plant there that there should be no repetition of previous events. We are four-square behind the nuclear non-proliferation agreement. We all genuinely and sincerely endeavour to carry out those duties in practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Parry: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for Thursday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).

Mr. Parry: Following yesterday's farcical meetings over our EEC budget contributions, are the Prime Minister and her ministerial colleagues aware that the increasing inflation and unemployment, together with further public spending cuts—estimated at £2 billion, and said to be coming from present allocations—mean that the Government are heading for the biggest confrontation with the trade union and Labour movement since the war?

The Prime Minister: Certainly not. I do not accept the premise in the hon. Gentleman's question in any way. With regard to the question that I at first thought that he was asking, concerning yesterday's meeting with Signor Cossiga, if that was his question, my reply is that it was not disastrous in any way. The European Community is moving towards our position—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Where is the community moving?

The Prime Minister: The European Community is moving towards our position, but I made it perfectly clear that it is not moving far enough or fast enough for my liking.

Mr. James Callaghan: I am sure that we all hope that the right hon. Lady


is right when she says that the European Community is moving towards our position, but is it the case that we are moving towards the Community's position? In other words, has the right hon. Lady now departed from the statement that she made to the House, namely, that she is insisting on a broad balance between our payments and receipts?

The Prime Minister: I cannot change the answer that I have given to this question many, many times since we returned from Dublin. We seek a genuine compromise, but we have very little room for manoeuvre. I have used that phrase and will continue to use it because it is true.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the right hon. Lady now care to answer the question? Has she moved from her position or is she moving?

The Prime Minister: I have, indeed, answered the right hon. Gentleman. He was very, very critical of the approach that I adopted in Dublin. The approach that I adopted in Dublin was that I would not be palmed off with some £350 million.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the answer "Yes" or "No"?

The Prime Minister: The answer, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot hear, is that at the end of Dublin I said that the position that we adopted was one of genuine compromise but that we had little room for manoeuvre. If the right hon. Gentleman had not left me such an awful problem, we should not have to be considering it right now.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country, if not the whole House, is entirely behind her in her efforts to reduce our EEC contribution? Is she further aware that she is admired for not coming back from Dublin pretending that she had some hollow victory? Does she agree that her case would be far stronger if she had the support of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If I may say so, I believe that some of my European colleagues were a lot more shaken than I was.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister confirm that she intends to inter-

vene in the dispute between the Department of Trade and the Department of Industry over the possible awarding of contracts for a new air traffic control systems for this country to the United States? Is she aware that, if that happens, it will not only mean redundancies for workers in this country but the possible future loss of exports? In comparing the competitive bids from Britain will she bear in mind that the Americans have enjoyed State funding in research and development?

The Prime Minister: No. I do not intend to intervene. The chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority is the person who is responsible for its operation and the security of air traffic control. I must leave it to him.

Mr. McCrindle: Since there is no monopoly on the collection and delivery of newspapers or the collection and delivery of parcels, has the Prime Minister had time today to consider whether there remains a justification for a monopoly on the collection and delivery of letters?

The Prime Minister: I believe that what my hon. Friend is saying is that where there is a monopoly that is a bad bargain for the public, that results in very high prices without commensurate service. I agree with my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Gas."] The Post Office's prices are going up today. Nationalised industries with a monopoly are a bad bargain for the consumer, and I hope that one day we shall be able to remove that monopoly.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Prime Minister say why she did not adhere to her principle of non-intervention in the case of the gas industry? Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that pay awards would be based on the successful running of industries, what figure does she have in mind for the substantial increases due to the workers in that industry?

The Prime Minister: It is surely right, where public money is involved, to set a reasonable rate of return on public money. I wish that there were more nationalised industries from which we received a reasonable rate of return instead of having a very large number that take out of the pool of wealth that this country creates.

Mr. Emery: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the growing demand from a majority of people in this country that an individual and his dependants should not be kept by the taxpayer when he is on strike? What measure will she introduce to fulfil the pledge given in our manifesto to bring that about?

The Prime Minister: At present we have no particular proposals to bring forward, but we should clearly understand that a person is primarily responsible for keeping his family. We expect him fully to discharge that duty. Equally, we expect trade unions, when they bring people out on strike, to make some contribution to their income during that period.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).

Mr. Flannery: In view of the steadily deteriorating industrial situation, may I ask whether the Prime Minister has turned her mind recently to the iniquitous Industrial Relations Act of the last Tory Government'? Does she remember the jailing of the five dockers, when the Official Solicitor had to step in and do something about that matter? When will the right hon. Lady do something about the steel workers, in view of Lord Denning's judgment? Does she not realise that the entire trade union movement is ready to fight back if she tries to hamstring them by the laws that she is trying to introduce against them? Should not the right hon. Lady do something to bring the situation to fruition?

The Prime Minister: I am more concerned with the present Employment Bill which, I believe, has the support of the vast majority of trade unionists in the country—even though that fact does not suit the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, leave to appeal to their Lordships' House against the Denning judgment was granted this morning.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh affairs, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motion on the European Community documents R/3289/78 and 9056 /79 on construction products.

TUESDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill.

Motions on European Community documents 9625/79, 8587/79 and 5331/79 concerning the general energy programme, nuclear power stations finances, and the plutonium safety cycle.

WEDNESDAY 6 FEBRUARY and THURSDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Industry Bill.

FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the British Aerospace Bill.

(European Community Documents
The relevant reports are as follows:
Construction products: 20th Report of Session 1978–79 and 11th Report of Session 1979–80
H/C Paper 10-xx 1978–79 para. 3 H/C Paper 195-xi 1979–80 para. 2.
Energy: 8th Report and 9th Report 1979–80 H/C Paper 159-viii 1979–80 para. 4 H/C Paper 159-ix 1979–80 paras. 1 and 4.)

Mr. Callaghan: On the subject of Monday's debate on Welsh affairs, we expect the Secretary of State for Wales to open the debate, but will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to attend the debate and account for his stewardship in view of the disastrous consequences that have arisen as a result of the Government's industrial policy in South Wales?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is a debate on Welsh affairs and it would be normal for Welsh Ministers to open and close the debate. However, I shall certainly pass on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.

Mr. Callaghan: While I accept fully that, in the normal event, we would expect Welsh Ministers to take part in the debate, the situation in South Wales is not normal. There is growing tension because of the handling of the steel and coal industries. The Government must take steps to try to defuse it. I urge strongly that the Secretary of State for Industry should be here.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be relief—I will not say satisfaction—in Wales to hear that there is to be a debate on Monday, because, among other things, it may give the opportunity to Opposition Members to urge caution on the Wales TUC in expressing its anxiety over a worrying situation and actions that are calculated to make that situation a great deal worse.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad to have been able to announce the debate, not only because of the importance of Wales itself but because I recall that on the last occasion when we had a debate on Wales on 23 May the debate started late. Therefore, discussion was curtailed. I am sure that all expressions of opinion will be heard in the debate. I am sure that we all want a peaceful settlement to the steel dispute.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In view of the critical unemployment situation in Scotland, will the Leader of the House tell us when there will be a debate on the Scottish economy?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that I laid myself open to that question when I announced the debate on Wales. I appreciate the point. There has not been a full debate on Scottish affairs for some time. Certainly, I shall look into the matter. It is a subject that might be suitable for a Supply day.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not becoming urgent for the House to have a debate on the fishing industry?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We should have a debate on the fishing industry, and I hope that there will be one before the next meeting of the Fisheries Council.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend ask an appropriate Minister to make a statement on the outcome of the discussion between the Government and the various Olympic Games organising bodies? In that way, the House will know what conclusion has been reached. Will my right hon. Friend also consider giving the House an opportunity to express itself on the matter, as has already taken place in the United States' Congress?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall consider those two important suggestions. Of course, the Cabinet has not yet heard the result of those conversations. We hope that it is one that will be in accordance with the national interest.

Mr. Mason: During the course of next week's business, will the Leader of the House consider apologising to the House for dishonouring a pledge that he made to the House on 13 July last year, when, in a reply to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European legislation, he said:
Ministers will not give agreement to any legislative proposal recommended by the Scrutiny Committee for further consideration by the House, before the House has given it that consideration".—[Official Report, 13 July 1979: Vol. 970, c. 302.]
Is not the right hon Gentleman aware that on Tuesday the Government concluded an agreement on total allowable catches for United Kingdom fishermen? That agreement violated the principle that he laid down. Therefore, will he personally apologise to the House or, alternatively, ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who concluded that agreement before consultation and discussion, to make a personal statement to the House of Commons?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman has escalated the issue. [Interruption.] Of course, I am well aware of the answer that I gave in written form to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) in July. I stated clearly that Ministers would not agree to any proposals that had not been before the Scrutiny Committee. However, there


was a proviso to that stating that that situation would apply unless there were special circumstances, with which the Minister was satisfied for good reasons. If the Minister had to reach an agreement in such circumstances, I said that he would come to the House and explain at the earliest opportunity. That is exactly what happened.
In the discussions at the Fisheries Council a proposal was put forward—not a highly controversial one—which it was in the interests of the country to accept. My right hon. Friend accepted it. It was not the document that has been before the Scrutiny Committee. Yesterday, he made a statement explaining his agreement. In fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to accept that my right hon. Friend did not spell out the position as fully as I am spelling it out now, but in fact the full spirit of what I said was complied with and, as I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), there will be a full debate on fisheries policy. That will provide an opportunity for a further statement to be made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Mason: I am sorry, but I cannot allow the Leader of the House to wriggle off the hook as easily as that. In his reply he made no mention of exceptional circumstances. If a Minister circumvents the agreement that was made with the Chairman of the Select Committee on European legislation it is clearly stated that he should take the first opportunity to explain the reasons for that to the House. He has not done so, and we await that explanation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In my answer, I said that the procedure of going to the Scrutiny Committee should be followed unless the Minister concerned was satisfied that there were good reasons for not doing so, which he would explain to the House at the earliest opportunity. The Minister was satisfied that there were good reasons, and he made a statement to the House yesterday. In concession to the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman is being patronising.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not being patronising; I am trying to be reasonable about the matter. The Minister did not

spell out the position as I am spelling it out now, but he complied with the answer that I gave.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who have watched the progress of the Industry Bill may want to put down amendments to facilitate hiving-off the MG factory and others? The amended Bill is still not in the Vote Office. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that the amended Bill is put in the Vote Office as soon as possible, as the Committee stage finished on 17 January?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course I shall look into the matter. I shall ensure that the amended Bill is made available at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to make an early statement? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to explain why the Government have refused to publish the annual guide to benefits and family pensions that is normally available to rights' workers, citizens' advice bureaux and hon. Members? That guide has been replaced with a shoddy leaflet that is no good at all to those who wish to claim benefits. It is one thing to take away or reduce benefits; it is another to prevent people from finding out their rights.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to review the position.

Mr. Body: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement early next week to the effect that Hansard will resume being a daily publication?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The ultimate responsibility for Hansard is not mine. It rests with Mr. Speaker, and he is advised by the Commission. However, we are looking into that question. As Leader of the House, I shall of course do all I can to assist. However, there are difficult problems, and I shall consult Mr. Speaker about them.

Mr. Cook: With reference to Tuesday's debate on nuclear energy, is it not ironic that we are to have an opportunity to debate EEC documents before we have had an opportunity to debate the Government's extraordinary and ambitious programme on nuclear power? Nuclear


power provides the Government's largest investment programme; possibly the only large investment programme left. Will the right hon. Gentleman advise his colleagues that some of us may wish to make glancing references to that programme during the debate, but that we shall also seek a full debate before the Government make a financial commitment of their own?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes. There is substance in the point about having a debate on the Government's programmes for energy and nuclear power at some time. I shall try to fit that debate in when I can. However, we have a heavy programme for the next few weeks.
As for the documents, they are more than routine. They have far-reaching implications for nuclear energy in the Community. It is right that the House should have an opportunity to debate them.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the publication of the extremely important ACORD report on technological changes in the United Kingdom, early-day motion 345 has been signed by Members from all parties asking yet again for an early debate on microelectronics?
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to provide time for an early debate on the progress and widening application of micro-computer technology in view of its likely impact on industry and society and the investment being made from all sources in the production of silicon chips.
Since, metaphorically and appropriately, the House has come to him on bended knees, will my right hon. Friend assure us that we will not have to adopt a more belligerent posture?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the importance of the subject and of my hon. Friend's expert knowledge. However, I am in difficulty. I have not got time for that debate in the next few weeks, but I agree that the subject must be debated at same stage.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Leader of the House intervene on the question of the constitutional propriety of the decision of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to prevent the Director

of Public Prosecutions from appearing before the Select Committee on home affairs in order to assist its investigation into deaths in police custody—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is quite out of order to refer to the activities of a Select Committee of the House before it has reported to the House. Such a report has not yet been made.

Mr. Meacher: May I complete my question by asking the Leader of the House to take account of the fact that the DPP has already dilated at length on his views on prosecution policy in a Sunday newspaper? Will he ensure that full evidence—including the presence of the DPP—will be assured to the Committee?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: You have, Mr. Speaker, deprived me of the first part of my answer. I shall have to make do with the second part. When the Select Committees were set up it was agreed by the House that the Law Officers' Department should not be subject to those Select Committees. The issue concerns the Department of the Attorney-General, and I shall refer the matter to him for further discussion.

Mr. Stanbrook: When will the new immigration rules be laid before the House?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The new immigration rules will be laid before the House as soon as may be.

Mr. Flannery: When is the debate on the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act likely to come up?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that it will not be next week.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House of Commons is experiencing great difficulty in finding Committee Rooms? We know, of course, that the number of Committees has increased. Indeed, we are bursting at the seams in many directions. Secretaries cannot get places, nor can some hon. Members. Has my right hon. Friend noticed the new building going on in Richmond Terrace? I think that it was started by the previous Government. Will he assure the House that if development of the Bridge Street site cannot be started


soon we can have the use of the Richmond Terrace building when it is completed?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are looking into the whole question of accommodation in the House. I am in constant consultation, through the usual channels, to discover how we can best use the available accommodation. The general issue is of concern to the Services Committee. I have noticed with great interest what has been going on in Richmond Terrace. It is being refurbished, and is not a new building. I thought it might be a suitable building for the Office of Arts and Libraries. However, I am afraid that that is impossible. The building is too far from the House to be of any use. Prompted by my hon. Friend, I shall investigate further to see what plans have been laid for that most interesting and beautiful building.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Following the admission by the Leader of the House that Scottish affairs have not been adequately debated this Session, and as the overwhelming majority of Scottish Members are implacably opposed to the Government's programme for Scotland, will the Leader of the House take urgent steps to activate realistic talks in order to achieve better and more democratic government in Scotland? The Leader of the House should bear in mind that the mandate for a Scottish Assembly was stronger than this Government's mandate to govern the United Kingdom.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On the question of talks on the future government of Scotland we have reached a limited agreement for discussion on the handling of Scottish business with the Opposition. I hope that we can proceed further along those lines. As for the lack of a Scottish debate, I am afraid that the previous Labour Government were much more culpable than the present Government. Apart from the debate on devolution, there has not been a general debate on Scottish affairs since 1976.

Mr. Emery: Bearing in mind the many requests for debates that have been made, will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that several hon. Members listened to the whole of the statement that was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the fisheries agreement? We felt that

he had explained the position clearly. It is therefore unnecessary to have another statement, as that would only duplicate the previous one.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I was glad to have an opportunity of explaining—more fully than perhaps was suitable for my right hon. Friend—the procedural position. I hope that I have allayed the wrath of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).

Mr. Kaufman: On the matter of the reply of the Leader of the House to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), in which he indicated general satisfaction that immigration rules would not be laid for some time, is he aware that that answer prolongs the anomaly whereby applications under the present rules are legally accepted until the new rules are laid, although it has been made clear that they will not be considered under the new rules following the dates on which the White Paper was laid last November? Is that not a serious injustice to thousands of people who are affected by those rules? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reconsider the position?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the anxiety that has been expressed. However, the right hon. Gentleman must not read into my answer things that were not in it. My answer meant what it said. It stands in its own right; not on the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to put upon it.

Mr. Marlow: The House gave leave to introduce a Bill to look annually at our expenditure to the European Community and to decide whether to continue with that expenditure. Bearing in mind that a majority of 123—twice the majority that the Government usually receive for their primary legislation—and 123 more than the Bill that was introduced yesterday, and that we are facing great problems in persuading our European friends of the gravity of our case on the EEC budget, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House is given a swift opportunity to debate the matter?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There has been a recent general debate on foreign affairs. We have also the advantage of continual


statements from my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. The House has ample opportunity to debate and discuss Community affairs. I do not think that we can reopen the whole question of British membership of the EEC.

Mr. Palmer: Will the Leader of the House tell us when he hopes to arrange a debate—perhaps fairly soon—on the important report of of Sir Monty Finniston on the British engineering profession?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is an important report, and it may well be relevant to a number of topics that we shall be debating in the near future. I cannot promise a special debate on the subject.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend prove his concern about the crisis in our prisons by promising an early debate on the May report?

Mr St. John-Stevas: I have told the House before that my right hon Friend the Home Secretary is discussing the implications of the report. When those discussions are completed we shall consider the matter again.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of his commitment to open government, will the Leader of the House next week persuade the Secretary of State for Social Services to explain to the House why, for the first time in 30 years, there will not be an annual report of his Department or an annual report from the chief medical officer?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall pass on that important representation to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In view of the discussions between the usual channels on possible extra financing for Opposition parties in Parliament, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a statement next week, or as soon as possible—not a written answer—on the conclusions of those discussions?
It appears that if the Labour Party subscription rises by 150 per cent. to £3, either it will be so rich that it will not need the money or it will find that it has so few members that it hardly justifies any subsidy.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The principal of subsidising the activities of political parties in Parliament—not outside it—has

been approved by the House. It is right to review the position in the light of inflation, which has eroded the original grant. The problem may be not the amount of the subsidy but how to spread it among the various Opposition parties if they should multiply in the future

Mr. Guy Barnett: Does the Leader of the House realise that the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill is not one Bill, but three or four? Each of those Bills is highly contentious and fundamental in the changes that they propose, Does the right hon. Gentleman think that one day is sufficient for the Second Reading of that Bill?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is a most important Bill. It was for some of the reasons that were put forward by the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was reduced in size and reintroduced into the House. Whether it should have one or two days is a matter for discussion through the usual channels. I see from my business statement that one day appears to be sufficient.

Mr. Christopher Price: Following the Home Secretary's promise earlier today that we shall have a statement on telephone tapping at some time in the future, will the Leader of the House use his influence to incorporate that statement with a debate on the whole issue? The matter has caused much concern, especially in its industrial aspects and the tapping of the Grunwick telephones.
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a full debate on the issue so that the demand for an inquiry can be fully canvassed in the House?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I advise the hon. Gentleman to proceed slowly but reasonably on the matter. He has received a promise of a statement. If I were to try to link that statement with a full debate it might delay the statement for a long time.
Let us listen to the statement and to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has to say, because it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the hon. Gentleman will find that all his anxieties are answered.

Mr. Maclennan: Was the Leader of the House not informed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the agenda of the Fisheries Council in time for him to consider amending the business of the House to allow for a debate?


If he was not so informed, the Minister was clearly in dereliction of his duty to keep his colleagues in the Government informed so that the position could not have arisen.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The whole matter arose at short notice. I have explained the position constitutionally in the House, and the proviso in my answer in July. I am quite satisfied that my right hon. Friend behaved entirely in accordance with the spirit of my remarks.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a statement next week on the steel strike? As Leader of the House, will he press the Secretary of State for Industry to be in the House for the Welsh debate on Monday? There are massive redundancies in the steel industry in Wales that will mean consequential massive redundancies in the coal industry. The whole of the Welsh economy is affected. It would be ridiculous if the Secretary of State for Industry were not present for that debate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: There has been a recent opportunity to debate the state of the steel industry. There will be an opportunity, in the context of the Welsh debate, to debate the position of the steel industry in Wales. I have said that should it be necessary I shall ask the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement on the steel strike.
It is important to have a general debate on the Welsh economy. I am well aware of the great economic and social problems that are faced by Wales.

Mr. Torney: Further to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), is the Leader of the House aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday mentioned no exceptional circumstances? Furthermore, he gave no reassurances to the British fishing industry that it would be guaranteed at least half of the catch. In order that British fishermen can be assured that the Government are not riding roughshod over Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that business is changed next week so that we can debate the issue, as he promised on 13 July?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It would not be feasible to change the business for next week. I have given an undertaking that before the next meeting of the Council we shall have a full debate.
Reverting to the circumstances of my right hon. Friend's action, he was presented at the eleventh hour with a revised proposal on total reliable catches. That, admittedly, was not the same as the one examined by the Scrutiny Committee. That new document was based on international scientific recommendations in accordance with the policy not only of this Government but of its predecessor. In exercising the liberty that he has under the statement that I made in July, my right hon. Friend was able to achieve useful progress towards a satisfactory solution of the fisheries problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising if they will co-operate with me and ask brief questions. I propose also to call the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), who wishes to withdraw a previous remark.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As the House will, quite rightly be debating the Welsh economy, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the House will be granted the opportunity to debate Merseyside affairs, especially as many are unemployed on Merseyside and the unemployment rate is higher than that of Wales?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware of the position in Merseyside. I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed early-day motion 355, which is critical of the Home Secretary's decision to exclude from this country Mr. Romesh Chandra, an Indian citizen, who is president of the World Peace Council?
[That this House deplores the action of the Home Secretary in excluding from the United Kingdom Mr. Romesh Chandra, President of the World Peace Council and Chairman of both the United Nations Committee of Non-Governmental Organisations and the United Nations Non-Governmental Organisation Sub-Committee on Apartheid, believing that this action was intended to hamper and destroy any resistance to the Tory Government's cold-war hysteria.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement has been made by the Indian Foreign Minister in the Indian Parliament which was critical of the Home Secretary's decision? Would it not be a good idea to give the Home Secretary the opportunity to make a statement at the Dispatch Box defending this disgraceful action?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, of course, has power to exclude a person on the ground that his judgment is that the exclusion is conducive to the public good. [Interruption.] That is the legal position. He has that power. There is not a right of appeal against that decision, but, of course, my right hon. Friend reached that decision after careful consideration of the factors involved. I know his views on it. He has no reason to change his opinion.

Mr. McElhone: Is the Leader of the House aware that there are further unconfirmed reports of substantial cuts to be made in the overseas aid programme? This, together with the rejection by the present Government of United Nations Security Council resolution 544 regarding compensation to Zambia, makes it absolutely imperative that we have an early debate on overseas aid. May I have that assurance this afternoon?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance of an early debate on overseas aid. I recognise the great importance of the question that he has raised. It is a question of balancing the needs of our national and international policy against a background of limited resources. However, I may perhaps give some encouragement to the hon. Member. I know that he is concerned about overseas aid questions, as is the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). I hope very soon to be able to announce a happy conclusion to these negotiations.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Leader of the House express to the Home Secretary the urgency of the Home Secretary's making a statement on the issue of telephone tapping, particularly in view of the serious allegation in the New Statesman that there is a multiplicity of telephone tapping under the authority of one warrant signed by the Home Secretary?

This is clearly wrong. Will the Leader of the House also make clear that in view of the public discussion that is taking place and the exchanges in the House of Commons, the block against Members asking parliamentary questions about telephone tapping will now be lifted in the interests of accountability and open government?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already indicated to the House that he will make a statement on this subject. It is one of considerable interest to all Members, and I shall be discussing it with him and putting to him the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
I do not know about the article in the New Statesman. I have given up reading the New Statesman—not for ideological reasons but because in recent months I have found it almost unreadable.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman be very careful to see that he does not mislead the House? There were three totally separate documents. There was the first scientific report on fisheries, which came before the Scrutiny Committee in October last year and was reported as suitable for debate on 12 December. That is not the same document as the TAC. It is the one upon which the total allowable catches were based. There was also the document on recording and log-keeping, and so forth, which was also reported earlier. Will the right hon. Gentleman check that he has not unwittingly misled the House, to the effect that this was an immediate problem facing his right hon. Friend? Secondly, will he rest assured that to put down 12 or 14 outstanding fisheries documents for debate in one and a half hours after 10 o'clock is not providing an adequate fisheries debate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman must not jump the gun. No decision has been taken about the timing and the length of the debate to which I have referred.
With regard to the documents, I do not think that I have misled the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read what I said. I distinguished between the various documents. Naturally, the hon. Gentleman is an expert on this matter,


which I lay no claim to be, and I am very grateful to him for his lucid explanation of the documentation. That is entirely in accordance with my own knowledge.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: In view of the strong support shown by the House yesterday for the setting up of a parliamentary television unit, will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration either to facilitating my Bill on the subject or to providing a day on which the House can debate this very serious issue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I thought that the occasion yesterday was an interesting illustration of what I may call the balance of opinion in the House. I cannot promise an early debate in Government time. Perhaps I may suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might look to the considerable number of days and half days that are available for private Members' motions. That that might be a suitable vehicle through which to raise the subject again.

Mr. Adley: A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked my right hon. Friend about the appearance of the amended Industry Bill. I have since been advised that the Bill was not amended in Committee. In view of the fact that my comments may have implied some criticism of the efficiency of the Government machine, I should like formally to apologise to my right hon. Friend for the mistake that I made.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I express my gratitude for that amended observation.

Mr. Mason: As far as the Opposition are concerned, there is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's pledge to the Chairman of the Select Committee has been broken. Secondly, there were no exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, the paper on total allowable catches was produced to the Committee in question last November. There was plenty of time for a debate before the Minister circumvented the pledge that he made to the House. Therefore, I finally appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he ask the Minister of Agriculture to make a personal statement to the House explaining in what circumstances—there may have been, in his opinion, circumstances—he broke that pledge to the House of Commons?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that anyone has broken any pledge, least of all myself. I shall certainly draw this discussion to my right hon. Friend's attention. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think that honour has been satisfied on this matter and will not go on flogging what is becoming not only a dead but a decomposing horse—or fish. I have been dragged into this whole matter. I think that the best thing would be for the right hon. Gentleman to pursue the detailed points in correspondence with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that what the Opposition are concerned about in this matter is the weakening of the original undertaking? If the matter is left as it is now—that is to say, with the right hon. Gentleman claiming that the procedure was perfectly properly observed and that nothing unsatisfactory has occurred—the same kind of thing can happen again. It is our belief that the original undertaking remains seriously weakened. If the right hon. Gentleman will not adopt my right hon. Friend's suggestion—which I think is the easy course for him—and ask the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement, may I suggest that he arranges for a debate on this matter? The Opposition are not content that his pledge and the understanding of how these matters should be dealt with in this House shall be weakened. That will be the situation if the matter is left on the basis of his last remarks.

Mr. Burden: On apoint of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that the body has not only decomposed but has been removed?

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are coming to the conclusion of questions on the Business Statement. There is a statement to follow.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In reply to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), I assure him that I do not think that this is a trivial matter, although I think that there has been a misunderstanding. I have given a very clear indication that we shall have a debate and that there will be a further statement.
With regard to strengthening the reply that I gave—which was intended to preserve the constitutional position of this House—far from being weakened, I think that the exchanges on this subject yesterday and today have strengthened that understanding. I shall certainly personally keen an even more vigilant eye on it than I have done in the past.
Later—

Mr. Torney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your protection for Back Benchers in this House against a Minister, to wit, the Leader of the House, concerning the pledge that he has broken on fishing—a pledge to Members of this House on an important—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman a point of order, or is he just repeating the point that he has already made this afternoon?

Mr. Torney: I have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order on which I can rule concerning the rules of the House?

Mr. Torney: Yes. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can give some protection to Back Bench Members—that is my point of order—in a situation in which Ministers of the Crown can break pledges and ignore this House completely.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That complaint is as old as creation. Obviously, in every Government there are hon. Members who feel that a statement is not what they wanted to hear. I am not seeking to intervene at all in the content of the exchanges that have taken place this afternoon. I only want to say that my job is to protect the rules of the House as well as to protect Back Benchers.

NUCLEAR SECURITY

Mr. Dalyell: May I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I gave you notice this morning and on which I have talked to the office at No. 10 Downing Street and to the Editor of Hansard and which I believe is of significance in principle to all hon. Members?
It is known to some hon. Members that I have been asking a series of questions concerned with nuclear security leaks from the joint centrifuge project at Almelo, Holland, and the consequences of these leaks, generally called the URENCO Khan incident, for the development of a Pakistani or Islamic nuclear weapon—hardly a trivial matter.
On Tuesday 29 January, in columns 1122 and 1123 the Prime Minister answered a question of specific substance, of which she had the usual fortnight's warning, on the URENCO security position. When I examined what she had said in print in Hansard, I had the impression that it read rather differently from what I had understood the Prime Minister to say in the House, to which I had listened intently.
I therefore went to the sound archive unit in Norman Shaw South, where I had the most courteous and prompt attention from Mr. Philip Farlow and the head of the unit, Mr. Morgan. For the usual 25p fee they gave me a cassette of what the Prime Minister had said, which I have given to the Clerk to the House in case you find it convenient to listen to it, Mr. Speaker.
In at least six instances the Prime Minister's replies to myself and to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) were different from the recorded cassette in wording and in the various degrees of emphasis, and in one other instance there was a material difference. The Prime Minister did not say:
We tried to secure undertakings from the Government of Pakistan that they would not transfer any nuclear technology anywhere else."—[Official Report, 29 January 1980;Vol. 977, c. 1023.]
According to the cassette, she said: "We do try…".
The implication of the Hansard report was that the Government had actually


tried and failed on a specific occasion. According to the cassette, this is not the meaning, and another question I had devised would not have been put on a false basis.
We are all indebted to the Hansard reporters for the wonderful job they do in tidying up our grammar and, frankly, I understand that, cassette or no cassette, sound broadcasting unit or no sound broadcasting unit, there has to be a certain editorial discretion by Hansard. Like others, I do not know what I would do without the assistance of Hansard quite often when it comes to grammar and, candidly, had some change occurred in, for example, some obscure amendment to yesterday's National Heritage Bill, I should not be raising the issue.
On the other hand, the answers to Prime Minister's Questions can be very sensitive, and is it not desirable that what any Prime Minister says at Question Time, warts and all, should in fact be reported in print? In particular, when the question is not an open question about her day's diary but a very precise question on a narrow topic of which she has been given warning and on which it is surely proper to try to interrogate her, should not special care be taken to put in print what the Prime Minister of the day actually said?
Frankly, I am of the opinion in this instance that both the Hansard reporters and the Prime Minister's private secretaries who check her answers in Hansard acted in good faith, but it is precisely because there appears to be an absence

of skulduggery on this occasion that I think that it is a good time for you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on the issues involved and possibly to make a statement at your convenience, and perhaps for the Prime Minister to make her views known at her convenience on the reporting of her answers at Question Time.
I submit that this is a subject of some consequence to all Members.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a considered reply to give to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who submitted his point of order this morning. Perhaps the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will wait and see what my reply is.
First of all, there is quite a simple reply: yes, there was a mistake in Hansard. The shorthand writing has been examined and there was a mistake in copying. It is a simple, human error that has happened before and I have no doubt at all will happen again. But I have already made it clear to the House that I am not going to accept the BBC recording as in any way a check upon Hansard. I am going to be guided by our Hansard reporters, on whose integrity we all rely and who will write down what they hear. Otherwise, as I have explained to the House before, some distant microphone could pick up a remark that the rest of the House does not hear and it could land us in exceedingly great difficulty.
But I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the necessary correction will be made in Hansard.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): With your permission, Mr. Speaker. I will make a statement about the main business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during February. The written forecast of business was deposited in the House on Monday 28 January. At present three meetings of the Council Ministers are proposed for February.
The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on 4 and 5 February and is expected to discuss an improved Commission mandate for the new co-operation agreement with Yugoslavia; revised proposals for the non-quota section of the regional development fund; the problems caused by imports of certain United States synthetic textile products; and the voluntary restraint of certain textile products from Greece during 1980. Ministers are also expected to consider Community relations with ASEAN in preparation for a March ministerial meeting and the signing of a co-operation agreement; a negotiating mandate for talks with Brazil on a new co-operation agreement; and relations with Turkey preparatory to a Community/Turkey Association Council meeting to take place in the margins of the Council. A second meeting at ministerial level in the Portuguese accession negotiations will also be held in the margins of the Council.
The Finance Council will meet on 11 February and is expected to discuss the financial implications of the Commission report on changes in the common agricultural policy to help balance the markets and streamline expenditure. The Council is also likely to discuss ways of improving co-ordination of economic policy in the Community and there may be some discussion on ways in which Community expenditure in the United Kingdom could be increased. Ministers are also expected to exchange views on the economic situation in the Community, especially in the light of recent oil price developments, and have a preliminary discussion on the report prepared for the European Council on the problems that may be encountered, and possible solutions, in setting up a European monetary fund.
The Agriculture Council will meet on 18 and 19 February and is expected to continue discussion of the report on changes in the common agricultural policy and the common organisation of the markets in wine, potatoes and sheep meat, including discussion of the French import controls. The Council is also expected to discuss access arrangements for New Zealand butter, post-1980 and aspects of policy regarding agricultural structures, and to have a preliminary exchange of views on the CAP price proposals for 1980–81.

Mr. Shore: The House, will be grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for resuming his practice of making oral statements on Community business, however grey the prospect may occasionally appear to be, because it gives us an opportunity to cover a wide range of matters which are of great interest to different Members of the House.
I shall be brief. I have three main queries to put to the right hon. Gentleman. The first relates to the co-operation agreement that we hope to see concluded with Yugoslavia. I had not realised—possibly the fault is entirely my own—that we had not yet even reached the point of agreeing a mandate. However, in view of the acceleration of events in Eastern Europe, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will press very strongly in the next appropriate Council that agreement should be reached on a negotiating mandate and that a satisfactory agreement should be made with this important country, whose economic prosperity we all wish to see sustained.
There are two other matters that I want to raise. The right hon. Gentleman will recall his own statement of 24 January on the subject of Afghanistan. In that he dwelt on two matters, not only of British importance but also of European Community importance. First, there was the question of exceptionally favourable credit terms offered in trade—mainly in capital goods—to the Soviet Union; and, secondly, there was the question of the subsidised sales of butter, meat and sugar to the Soviet Union. Can he tell us whether—and, if so, in what Council—these matters are to be discussed, and whether specific Commission proposals will be considered at those meetings? Will he take on board the


fact that we find it absolutely intolerable that subsidised sales of butter, meat and sugar should continue? We are not in favour of such sales to any advanced industrial country, and we certainly do not see why the Soviet Union should be the particular beneficiary.
My last question relates to that elusivetopic, which I would have thought is of some importance to the country, to the House and to the reputation of the Prime Minister. I am, of course, referring to the heart issue of the recent Dublin summit. Where is it? What has happened to it? The most elusive reference that I could find was in the right hon. Gentleman's statement when he said: "There may be some discussions on ways in which Community expenditure in the United Kingdom could be increased". What has happened to all those bold, brave pronouncements about a broad balance of expenditure and income at Dublin and not later? Are we here witnessing one of the most appalling retreats—and, frankly, one of the most public humiliations—that this country has seen for a long time?
In commenting on this, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate in which of these many councils these matters will be raised? Will he further tell the House, because it is entirely appropriate for him to do so, what has been the result of his own pererinations about the West European capitals in the last two or three weeks and what was the result of Signor Cossiga's recent discussions with the Prime Minister?

Sir I. Gilmour: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is wholly desirable that the question of Yugoslavia should be concluded as soon as possible. He will be aware that it was agreed at the last Foreign Affairs Council that matters should be speeded up. In fact, we hope to conclude the terms of a proposed agreement at the February Council.
As to my statement on Afghanistan, as the right hon. Gentleman knows the Government do not favour the sale of subsidised butter, and so on, to Russia. However, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware from his knowledge of the procedure, these matters will be discussed in management committees rather than in Council. We shall have to see what happens. The Commission will have to

study the implications of the decision that was made at the last Foreign Affairs Council about carrying out the mandate that it was given.
The right hon. Gentleman displayed a quite unaccustomed and unwonted naivety in regard to his last question. He must be well aware that everything which is important in the Community is not invariably discussed at every Council that is held. Although the question of our budget contribution probably will come up in the Finance Council, the fact that it will not be a main item in no way means that it has disappeared from view. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend and the Government had a satisfactory and friendly meeting with Signor Cossiga yesterday. It is up to Signor Cossiga to decide whether or not there should be an early meeting of the European Council. He said yesterday that he did not believe in being a prophet in these matters, and I do not believe in being a prophet either.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, I have completed my tour of European capitals. I discovered a general desire to get this problem solved. Obviously, there will have to be considerable negotiations between now and then, but the fact that the subject does not appear on the agenda of every Council that turns up in no way means that there has been any of the rhetorical stuff which the right hon. Gentleman put forward about a great retreat. We have made some progress—I am sure that he would agree that it has been greater progress than the previous Government made—and we look forward to making much greater progress during the next month or so.

Mr. Ioan Evans: With regard to our net contribution of more than £1,000 million, is there to be a summit meeting in the near future? Does not that have a great bearing on the Budget which the Chancellor will bring forward and on whether further public expenditure cuts will be made? Although there are important matters to be raised in the EEC, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government will not be raising the question of the Russian Olympics, because there is a feeling on both sides of the House that this matter has perhaps been overplayed by the Government?

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman must have decided on his questions before he listened to my statement, because I have already told him what I think about the prospect of an early conference. We cannot know whether the next summit conference will discuss the Olympics. By that time, the matter may well have been resolved.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Mr. Jim Spicer rose—

Mr. Speaker: In view of his obvious difficulty, if the hon. Gentleman would find it easier he may ask his question sitting down.

Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the widespread concern—indeed, dismay—that many people within the Community feel about our seeming lack of ability to work together in closer political unity, given the threats that we now face. Will he give an undertaking that, if the occasion demands, as it certainly seems to now, the Foreign Ministers will meet much more often to discuss political co-operation in order to achieve the unity that we so much desire?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the Foreign Ministers will meet in closer political co-operation whenever that is necessary, and that may well take place next week. As I think I have told the House before, it is a little unreasonable to expect the Community automatically to fall into full agreement on a matter so important as Afghanistan. Initially, there are bound to be different perceptions and reactions. To some extent, I believe that those have been exaggerated, but I entirely agree with the main drift of my hon. Friend's argument, which is that maximum unity within the Community on these matters is vitally important.

Mr. Straw: The news that the Foreign Affairs Council is to discuss the import of synthetic fibres from the United States will be greatly welcomed by those suffering from the importation of those fibres in the Lancashire textile and carpet industries in particular. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he anticipates that an EEC agreement will be reached at that meeting on firm action to be taken in respect of those imports?
I apologise in advance for appearing to be naive and confused about our budgetary contribution—lest the Lord

Privy Seal admonishes me for it—but will he clarify, at least in my own mind, whether there will be a summit in February, as was half promised after Dublin? Or is it the case that the Prime Ministers of the member States of the EEC have not yet reached a stage at which they can even agree on the early meeting that was anticipated at the end of the Dublin summit?

Sir I. Gilmour: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we have expressed considerable concern about the import of synthetic fibres from America, and we regret that the Commission's consultations with the Americans have not yet reached an agreement. It was agreed last December, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, that the Commission would put forward proposals to the February Council, and we expect it to do so. I cannot anticipate what it will say, but we are certainly determined to achieve a satisfactory solution.
I have twice tried to answer the question about the February Council. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it was agreed at Dublin that the responsibility was in the lap of the Italian Presidency, which should decide whether an early summit meeting should be held. Signor Cossiga said yesterday that he was not in the prophecy business. As I said earlier, I am not in the prophecy business either.

Mr. Marlow: Although many hon. Members would dearly love there to be greater political co-operation with our friends in Europe, is it not impossible for Britain to co-operate politically with Europe until we get a fair deal on our contribution to the EEC budget? In view of the fact that the public and the House are becoming increasingly concerned about the issue, will my right hon. Friend speak to the Prime Minister to ensure that we can have an early debate in the House, so that our friends in Europe know precisely what we think about what is happening there at the moment?

Sir I. Gilmour: There are good arguments for a debate in the House, but the argument put forward by my hon. Friend in this respect is not good. Our friends in Europe know exactly what we think about the matter. I, and many other more important people have told them exactly what we think. The fact that


we have considerable difficulties with our friends in Europe about our budgetary contribution does not, and should not stop us from co-operating with them on important world matters such as Afghanistan, which affects us all.

Mr. Dalyell: Even if the Lord Privy Seal cannot be expected to know the details, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knows very well the importance of the issue of ethyl-alcohol to BP at Grange mouth, involving the possibility of a multi-million pound investment. Answering questions on agriculture, the Minister gave what I took to be a half promise to raise the question of the European directive at the earliest possible opportunity with his colleagues among our partners. Since hundreds of jobs are at stake, and since BP Chemicals may not go ahead with a heavy investment in ethyl-alcohol—if the project goes into operation—could this matter be regarded as serious? I hope that the Lord Privy Seal has been briefed by his Minister of State.

Sir I. Gilmour: Of course we regard the matter as extremely serious. We do not yet know whether it will be on the agenda, but if it is we shall treat it with extreme seriousness. I have noted all the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly pass them on to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Body: I refer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). If it is the case that the EEC cannot agree about the aggression in Afghanistan, is there any hope that it will ever agree about any political subject?

Sir I. Gilmour: Perhaps my hon. Friend has not had time to read the declaration made by the EEC about the invasion of Afghanistan. If he does have time to read it, he will see that there was a firm denunciation of the Russian invasion.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members are brief, I shall call all those who have been rising.

Mr. Anderson: In the context of our budgetary contribution and the search for means of diverting extra EEC re-

sources to the United Kingdom, will the Lord Privy Seal state whether the Government are prepared to take any initiative in respect of coal and steel and additional Community resources for the restructuring of these vital industries in the United Kingdom?

Sir I. Gilmour: We have put forward suggestions to our European partners for increasing Community expenditure in Britain. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the main cause of our grossly excessive net contribution is the shortage of EEC receipts in the United Kingdom. We have put forward various ideas, including the suggestions he raises. We now await the Commission paper on the subject, which should be published next week.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general admiration for the extremely quiet and determined way in which he has pursued the subject of Britain's contribution? Does he none the less agree that, despite the enormous importance of getting the matter right, there is a still greater importance attached to the strengthening of unity in Western Europe, particularly at a time when the intentions of the Soviet Union are only too clear?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I agree that there are important external matters which affect the Community. I am sure that he will agree that this is an additional argument for solving our budget problems, so that the whole Community can get on with tackling these important problems.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that the House is pleased that action is to be taken on synthetic textile products from America? At least, that was the purport of his statement. Will he explain what he means by the co-ordination of economic policies within the EEC? Does he also accept that, because we have the most significant textile and clothing industries, co-ordinaton of economic policies could result in real harm to the textile and clothing industries, which are already facing severe difficulties? Will he say a word about our massive £1 billion contribution to the EEC which the Prime Minister has promised repeatedly to wipe out? Does


he accept that as time goes by, and nothing results from the negotiations, it will become, not so much a matter of the Iron Lady, but more a matter of the mouse that roared?

Sir I. Gilmour: I assure the hon. Gentleman that co-ordination of economic policies does not have as one of its objectives a harmful effect on our textile industry. That is very far from what we have in mind. He will probably agree on reflection that the second part of his question was a little contrived and I do not think that it needs a detailed answer.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Lord Privy Seal throw some light on three Delphic phrases that he used? First, he mentioned the margins of the Council. Will he tell us where they are, and who attends them? Similarly, are management committees run by officials, as are the margins of the Council? Finally, the Agriculture Council is to consider on 18 and 19 February aspects of policy regarding agricultural structures. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us what that means?

Sir I. Gilmour: It is concerned with the possibility of the alteration of the CAP budget. Management committees are well established. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not come across them before now. Of course, even with the best will in the world, Ministers cannot attend every meeting. Agricultural management committees work according to the directions given by the Council of Ministers. Margins of the Council deal with matters that do not happen in the full plenary session of the Council. They may take the form of other meetings outside. They are not quite the same as the usual channels, but they are analogous to them.

Mr. Jay: If we are co-operating with our EEC partners on great issues such as Afghanistan, can the Lord Privy Seal say whether subsidised EEC food is being exported to the Soviet Union at present?

Sir I. Gilmour: I have already given a partial answer to that question. It was agreed at the last Council of Foreign Ministers—and even before that—that pre-fixation should cease, It may be that some transactions are still in the pipe-

line. As I suggested implicitly to the right hon. Gentleman, although we are opposed to the export of subsidised food to the Soviet Union, I would be misleading the House if I were to give any guarantee that we shall succeed in stopping it.

Mr. Maclennan: Can the Lord Privy Seal say what progress is being made in the consideration being given by the Government to the proposals of the Commission to spend some £10 million on the development of the Western Isles, and in particular whether they are pressing the views which I believe are held by the Government, and which are certainly held by the Highlands and Islands Development Board, that the money should be made available for development in a wider area throughout the Highlands?

Sir I. Gilmour: I cannot give an exact answer to the hon. Gentleman but will see that he gets one in very good time.

Mr. Torney: In view of the statements in the press today that the subsidised surplus of EEC butter is not now to be sent to the Soviet Union, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us—or find out and inform the House at a later date—whether the British taxpayer will in future be subsidising butter to some other part of the world?

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we in this country receive a considerable butter subsidy.

Mr. Shore: With regard to subsidised foodstuffs being sold to the Soviet Union, we understand, of course, the position concerning foodstuffs which are already in transit. That is not what is at issue. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us in a little more detail what it is in the procedures of the management committees that makes it impossible for a clear decision to be reached in the Council of Ministers to stop forward sales or further sales of subsidised foodstuffs? If he is telling us that there are particular countries or particular officials representing particular countries who are holding it up, will he tell us exactly who they are? Let us know who are joining with us and who are not with us in this endeavour.
I should like also to refer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the


Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and by one of the Conservative Members concerning our contributions to the Community budget. The timing is important. If we are to believe what the Prime Minister said, it is part of the major decision to be made about the budget against the background of public expenditure—that is, as from the beginning of the next financial year. That was the whole purpose, presumably, of saying that it would be at Christmas in Dublin and not later. Now we are being delayed.
It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that matters such as budget contributions can be discussed in councils and forums other than those that he has listed. I fully understand that, but, as he well knows, the only forum in which it can be discussed, other than these forums, is the forum of the European Council. Unless Signor Cossiga has agreed in principle to holding a summit Council before the end of February, it will be too late.
I want an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that if Signor Cossiga is unable to get the agreement of other European leaders to such a European Council, he will raise the matter in the Finance and Economic Council at its February meeting.

Sir. I. Gilmour: The management committees act according to the directives given by the Foreign Affairs Council. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the Foreign Affairs Council earlier this month there was not a decision to cut off all exports to the Soviet Union. No doubt he will have read about it. That has nothing to do with officials. They act according to what was decided at that Council. There is no question of Signor Cossiga wanting or not wanting to have a Council. It is generally agreed, I think, by both Signor Cossiga and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that there is no point in having an early Council unless it is likely to be successful. It is up to him, therefore, to decide whether a convenient monent can be found at which it is likely to be successful. If he does not find it, it will

be put off until the normal meeting of the European Council, But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that negotiations and discussions will continue. I beg him not to concentrate his mind, uncharacteristically, on just these formal Councils. That is not necessarily the place, where all the most important negotiations take place.

Mr. Shore: Does it not mean that, unless some major agreement is reached within the next two or three weeks, the House and the country will face an additional £1,000 million of public expenditure, as no offsetting saving can be placed against the European budgetary account? This is a matter of the gravest importance.

Sir I. Gilmour: With great respect, as my right hon. Friend made clear yesterday, that is not true. If agreement is reached at the Council in Brussels on 31 March, that will have a very significant effect on our budgetary problem.

Mr. Jay: Does not the Minister realise that if the net deficit is reduced by increasing expenditure rather than by reducing our contribution there will be no assistance to the British budgetary problem, because the expenditure will be increased and not reduced?

Sir I. Gilmour: The great burden that is placed on this country, whereby we are by far the greatest net contributor to the budget, will be cured by increased expenditure in this country.

BILL PRESENTED

RIGHTS OF PRIVATE TENANTS(No. 2)

Mr. David Alton, presented a Bill to specify the rights of tenants, owners and occupiers of privately rented property; to make provisions relating to occupation of private rent property, caravans, boats and other rented residences; to impose on local authorities a duty to develop, let or otherwise bring into beneficial use land owned by them or other public bodies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 February and to be printed [Bill 136].

AGRICULTURE AND POLLUTION

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution relating to Agriculture and Pollution [Cmnd. 7644].
I am particularly pleased to have the honour to open the debate on the Royal Commission's seventh report, having in a previous incarnation had the opportunity to debate the Royal Commission's sixth report, which dealt with nuclear power and the environment.
One is struck immediately by the very welcome characteristics of a Royal Commission report—a report on a matter of vital interest that is so thorough, balanced and constructive in its approach. I think that right hon. and hon. Members on each side of the House will agree that very often on contentious issues we are presented with documents which are more notable for their polemical approach than for the partiality of their evidence. It is, therefore, all the more refreshing to be able to welcome today and to consider a document that is very different from that and represents a very much more valuable approach.
I should therefore like to express immediately, on behalf of the Government, their appreciation to the chairman of the Commission, Sir Hans Kornberg, and to all the members of the Commission for the seventh report, and to thank them for the very considerable time and effort they have devoted to the study of agriculture and pollution. I believe that it will be of great value not merely to this country but also in an international context.
One of the features that I noticed when considering the sixth report on nuclear power was the very great interest and attention that it aroused throughout the world. It became, undoubtedly, one of the authoritative books of reference in many countries. I have no doubt that the seventh report will likewise be very widely read in a considerable number of countries which face many of the same problems and issues as the report covers.
In considering the Government's response to the report, we shall obviously want to take account of the very wide

range of interests concerned in it—agricultural, industrial, local authorities, water and environmental. We are therefore consulting all these interests.
There has already been a debate on the report in another place. Today provides an opportunity for Members of this House to express their view upon it, and I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be listening to the debate with great interest.
Before turning to the report, I should like to say something about our general approach to pollution control and about the part that the Royal Commission plays in this. The day-to-day implementation of the controls over environmental pollution is generally decentralised. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have general responsibilities in regard to environmental pollution and, in particular, for the coordination of policy in relation to environmental pollution over all fields of governmental activity.
Consideration of the pollution implications of particular policies is a matter for all departmental Ministers. My right hon. Friend and I claim no monopoly of environmental wisdom. It is far better for pollution to be considered as an integral part of policy decisions by those who are expert in the various areas and for this to be done within the context of overall governmental policy on environmental pollution, co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend and my Department.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has an important part in this structure. It obviously keeps a general eye on developments in environmental policy, but its main contribution is in the preparation of major reports like the one we are discussing today. The Royal Commission plays an essential role in making in-depth studies in particular areas. It is done in a way that cannot be achieved through normal interdepartmental co-ordination.
The report dwells particularly on the question of ministerial responsibilities. It recommends a stronger role for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in considering and minimising the polluting effects of agricultural practices. In relation to many of the issues raised in the report, it is, of course, true that,


apart from my right hon. Friend's co-ordinating role, both Departments have an interest in the matters studied by the Commission. For example, my right hon. Friend and I have an interest in the implications of agricultural practices for water quality because of our responsibilities, under the Water Act 1973, for the water supply aspects of national water policy.
My right hon. Friend and I are similarly involved with the effects of agriculture—in relation to the report, this primarily means pesticides—on wildlife. Again, my right hon. Friend has a direct interest because of his interests in nature conservation and his responsibility for the Nature Conservancy Council.
Similar points of our involvement in the Department of the Environment arise in other sections of the report—those dealing with sewage sludge, air pollution and the operation of the planning system.
None of this undermines the point that the Royal Commission makes fairly about ministerial responsibilities—that thinking about possible effects on the environment should be an integral part of agricultural policy and not something to tack on as an afterthought. The point was well made by a member of the Commission—the noble Baroness, the Baroness White. When speaking in the debate in another place, she said that the Ministry of Agriculture
should take a much greater responsibility upon themselves for ensuring that they are the Department of first instance where matters of agricultural pollution are concerned.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 January 1980; Vol. 404, c. 353.]
Looked at in this light, I do not believe that the Royal Commission is calling for any fundamental change. It is not proposing any alteration of statutory responsibilities, nor any diminution in the role of my Department in its general oversight of environmental pollution issues. But it wants to see a greater emphasis on pollution matters in the agricultural Departments and their advisory services. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will deal with this point in more detail in winding up the debate.
I can say now that the Government accept the general principle that the possibilities of polluting effects should be

considered by those who are experts in agricultural matters.
I should like to turn now to the report's detailed recommendations. I welcome the report. Some rude comments were made that the report fell apart at the seams as soon as it was published. That was due more to lack of good adhesive chemistry in the binding in HMSO than to any lack of cohesiveness in philosophical content.
Comments on the report are still coming in, but it is possible to say that it has been generally well received. Some of the proposals for more detailed control, perhaps over the aerial spraying of pesticides and intensive livestock units, have been criticised by the farming community. But we must be encouraged generally by the response of the National Farmers Union that the report gives a reasoned approach that is not biased against the agricultural industry. Attention has been drawn to the resource implications in a number of recommendations by a number of bodies, not least local authorities and the water industry.
As the report brings out so clearly, there has been a revolution in agricultural practice over the last 30 years. We have seen a greater use of pesticides and nitrogen fertilisers and the trend towards more intensive farming of livestock. These have all helped our farmers to make considerable improvements in the productive capacity of the land. British agriculture has increased its contribution to the nation's requirements of farm produce to over 70 per cent. of the total supply of commodities which can be produced here. This compares with about 60 per cent. in 1970. The comparison is more stark in financial terms. The total value of agricultural production, which was £1,600 million in 1960, amounted to some £7,000 million in 1978.
Clearly the aim of keeping to the minimum our dependence on imported foodstuffs commands general support. We must bear in mind that, unless British agriculture remains competitive, we put at risk an import saving on livestock products alone of over £2,000 million per year.
I was struck by a comment Lord Winstanley, speaking in his medical capacity in the other place, against a general background of concern over the use of


chemicals and fertilisers, that if for any reason there were a total cessation of their use at the present time, one-third of the world's population would die of starvation. That puts in context one of the moral aspects of the use of artificial chemicals and fertilisers.
Having put that background to the case for the use of chemicals, it is right to stop and consider the wider implications in terms of the effect of these developments on the environment.
The Royal Commission has made a number of recommendations for changes. Most of them are directed at minimising the risks of pollution caused by agriculture. But some also deal with the way in which pollution from other sources affects agriculture. Although the Government have not yet reached conclusions on the recommendations, it may be helpful if I comment briefly on three major issues—pesticides, nitrogen fertilisers and farm wastes.
Since the Second World War, we have seen a massive growth in the production and use of synthetic chemicals. The agrochemicals industry has been among the most successful sectors of the chemical industry. I was interested in the figures that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) quoted in an Adjournment debate. I had them checked, and they are pretty accurate.
In 1944, there were 65 approved pesticide products based on some simple active ingredients and total sales represented some £20 million. Compared with that, we now have over 800 approved products, containing 200 different and mostly complex synthetic chemicals. The total value of the market had increased to no less than £140 million in 1975. Pesticides can be divided, according to their action, into three categories—insecticides, fungicides and herbicides. The use of each of these in agriculture has developed.
In the case of insecticides, in the period from 1971 to 1975 the estimated annual average quantity of active ingredients was over 1,300 tonnes, and in the case of fungicides over 2,000 tonnes. There has been a huge increase in the use of herbicides. This area now dominates the market. The estimated annual average quantity used in the period from 1971 to

1975 was over 15,000 tonnes. I should like to pay tribute to the careful watch kept on all these developments by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Our outstanding safety record to date is in no small measure due to its work.
The Royal Commission in its report gives a general blessing to the present approach on the control of pesticides, but it makes a number of recommendations for improvements. These include a policy aim of minimum pesticide usage consistent with efficient production, closer control of aerial spraying, and more research, especially directed at ways of reducing overall usage.
I might interject and, in one sense, declare a previous interest. From my own observations in that previous interest, I recognise that there are some exciting possibilities in new technology, perhaps connected with electrostatic application that could ensure much more efficient use of such chemicals while achieving all the objectives of the application but perhaps without the random spray nature of a considerable amount of the present methods of application.
As with pesticides, there has been a considerable increase since the last war in the use of inorganic fertilisers. The increase has been most marked in the case of nitrogen fertilisers—their usage has increased from a little over 300,000 tonnes in 1959 to over 1 million tonnes in 1975–76. This development has made some contribution to the rising nitrate levels in certain waters, particularly in arable areas. On present evidence, the Royal Commission considers that anxiety over risks to public health from current levels of nitrate in water supplies is not justified. But it stresses the importance of using these fertilisers efficiently in order to minimise nitrate losses. It also makes more detailed recommendations, including some for further research.
On farm wastes, particular concern was expressed by the Royal Commission about the wastes from intensive livestock units. There has been a considerable increase in the extent of intensive livestock farming. Although precise figures are not available, there is a clear trend towards larger herds and flocks. I have asked for clarification on this, and these are the best statistics available to me. For example, the number of pig herds in England and Wales with 1,000 or more animals was


1,278 in 1975, compared with only 130 in 1960. That shows very clearly how those units have grown.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I take up the point about waste from large flocks kept in intensive conditions. I know that one large outbreak of fowl pest in Norfolk arose from the spreading of manure from some of these houses. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the Commission has commented on the spread of disease in this way, as opposed to polluting streams and water supplies?

Mr. King: I shall make certain comments on some of the problems involved here. If my answer does not fully cover the points, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will reply more fully when he replies.
I have looked at the growth of intensive units. I quoted the figures on pigs which were of particular interest. It is interesting to note that the number of broiler flocks with more than 100,000 head has doubled in the last 15 years. Quite traditional forms of agriculture show increased concentrations. The keeping of large enterprises on small areas of land is also increasing.
The number of dairy heards of 100 head or more on holdings of less than 60 hectares rose from 12 in 1960 to 342 in 1974. The number of flocks of poultry of over 5,000 head on holdings of less than two hectares rose from 278 in 1960 to 405 in 1974. Whereas in 1960 there were no pig herds of 1,000 head or more on holdings of less than eight hectares, there were 284 in 1974. These figures are, of course, small compared with the total number of holdings but they illustrate graphically the development of intensive units.
The Royal Commission makes a number of proposals for dealing with the nuisance that can arise from intensive units. Its major proposal is that these units should be specifically excluded from the permitted development provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order and that there should be controls over their operation. The interaction of planning and pollution is an issue in which I am closely concerned.
Pollution considerations are matters which can and should be taken into

account in certain ways under the planning system. For example, in providing land in development plans for heavy industry it is important that this should be in areas where the polluting effects on neighbouring land use will be minimised, and development control could be applied where the polluting effects of a proposal made it totally unacceptable. However, I would normally expect to see the detailed controls over pollution exercised under pollution powers.
The question of planning control over agricultural developments is one which I know from my own experience as a constituency Member causes a good deal of controversy. Certainly, the two most controversial developments in my own constituency resulted from the exemptions that are possible for agricultural developments under the present permitted development provisions. I know that this causes concern in certain parts of the country.
Against that, we must recognise that, at a time when we are seeking to streamline planning and to get the development control system out of unnecessary concern for detail, we would have to think carefully about extending the range of development control. The wide exemptions from planning control which agriculture enjoys at present have generally worked satisfactorily. We would be reluctant to see any substantial change in the position.
At the same time, we must recognise that the nature of agricultural buildings has been changing in recent years and we shall want to consider the Royal Commission's recommendations very carefully in the light of all the comments that are made, both in the report and the representations made to us.
The report deals also with some ways in which pollution from other sources affects agriculture—in particular, the longstanding practice of using sewage sludge as a fertiliser. In fact, 40 per cent. of all sludge produced goes to farmland.
The use of sewage sludge as a fertiliser and soil conditioner clearly makes good sense. It enables the water industry to dispose of a substance which is, so far as it is concerned, a waste. It is for many water authorities, by far the most economical option, and the loss of that option would have a significant impact on water charges in general. It provides


the agriculture industry with a cheap source of fertiliser. It is therefore not surprising that, although there are large variations from one area to another, all water authorities use this method of disposal for some of their sludge.
The Royal Commission makes no criticism of the general practice of using sewage sludge in agriculture. One of my diligent researchers has found a higher authority for this practice. I refer the House to Deuteronomy 23: 12–13, where Moses advised the Israelites to return their waste to the soil. But the Commission points out that there can be problems.
First, there is the question of pathogenic organisms, especially in untreated sludge. The Commission recommends that there should be no extension of the practice of spreading untreated sludge until further research has been carried out on the extent of survival of pathogens. Secondly, there is another problem which could not be foreseen when Moses gave his advice in 1445 BC—I do not know how such an amazingly precise date has been provided—and that is the presence of toxic metals arising from industrial discharges to sewers. The Commission commends the work of the Standing Committee on the Disposal of Sewage Sludge, which is run jointly by my Department and the National Water Council. However, it calls for further work to establish a scientific basis for the disposal of sludge on agricultural land and for much greater efforts to reduce contamination of sewage by industrial effluents.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The right hon. Gentleman has referred twice to advisory bodies. Can we have an assurance from him that some of these bodies will not be wound up as a result of the Government's great efforts to do away with quangos?

Mr. King: I do not think that a warm tribute from the Dispatch Box to the continuing value of its work is a prelude to the committee's disappearance. Since the bodies to which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has referred come within the province of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I will leave him to underline the value of their work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will receive adequate assurances on that point.
There are important and difficult issues concerning sewage sludge. In addition to the recommendations I have mentioned, the Royal Commission argues for improved monitoring. There is a substantial research content in its recommendations concerning sewage sludge. We shall need to look at these alongside the recommendations for research in other areas and take a view on how to make the best use of the limited research funds that are available.
In total, the Royal Commission has made 80 recommendations and we are considering them all in the light of the comments we are receiving from many interested bodies. A further point that my right hon. Friend made clear in a letter that he sent to the chairman of the Royal Commission, Sir Hans Kornberg, when the report was published is that we are bound by present circumstances to give thought to the resource obligations of these proposals.
The Royal Commission has, in particular, drawn attention to the need for research in a number of areas. In our use of limited research funds we shall need to establish very clearly what the most important priorities are. This means that there may well be constraints on the speed with which we can implement desirable improvements. I think that that will be well understood by the House, and in no sense should it take away from the very warm and genuine welcome that the Government give to the report. We believe that it provides a sound basis for the development of future policy in relation to agriculture and pollution.
We hope that the House will take this opportunity to develop the points in the report which are of particular interest to hon. Members. The Government have provided this opportunity to take note, at an appropriate time before any final decisions are taken in the matter, and I hope that my introduction to the report of the Royal Commission will be helpful to hon. Members in identifying particular areas of interest. I shall listen with interest to the debate.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: On behalf of the Opposition, and, I think, of the whole House, may I say how grateful we are to the Minister and to the Government for providing time for this debate


so soon after the publication of the report of the Royal Commission? This is rare, and I pay tribute to the Government for having provided what in this television-conscious age is called "prime time" so that we do not have to debate these issues in the middle of the night. The time has been provided even though the report was debated a few days ago in the other place. I am grateful to the Minister for asking this House to take note of the report and to take note of observations upon it.
I share the Minister's view of the report. When I learnt that I was assigned to the Front Bench to take part in this debate, I picked up the report as a matter of duty and began to read it. I became absorbed in and, indeed, fascinated by it. It is one of the best-written reports—from a purely literary point of view—that one could imagine. I congratule Professor Sir Hans Kornberg, the chairman, and all the members of the Commission on the excellence of the report and on the way in which it is presented. It is a highly technical document, presented in such a way that even I, a layman, can understand it.
There are important recommendations in the report which need urgent action by the Government. I do not necessarily mean action in this crowded Session, but many of these recommendations need legislative or administrative attention early in the life of this Government. Some of the recommendations concern administration and some require legislative action. A few of them do not require any expenditure. Advice would be sufficient.
Let me make it clear to the House—and I am sure that the Government accept this—that many of the recommendations will inevitably require public expenditure. I plead with the Government, despite their policy of restraint on public spending, to recognise that though many of the recommendations in the report will engender public expenditure, they will represent saving, not waste. I have often said from this Front Bench that public expenditure of itself does not equal waste. Public expenditure can result in considerable savings for farmers, industry and the environment and ultimately for the nation.
The right hon. Gentleman asks for the views of the House. In response to that request, I ask the Government not to be constrained in implementing some of the recommendations by the narrow limitations on public expenditure that must sometimes obtain. Public expenditure, under any Government, is often attacked for itself rather than for its purpose.
The report examines a fascinating subject. From the geographical and physical points of view, it examines the point of impact between agriculture and the rest of the environment. Agriculture is our biggest industry in terms of land and environment. The report also reflects a temporal interest, in that it deals with the point where past tradition and present practice and the enormous strides in technology meet. That is a fascinating departure point for discussion by a Royal Commission.
It may surprise hon. Gentlemen to know that I have nothing but admiration for our farming industry. I admire the way in which country-born farmers—I repeat, country-born farmers—without the necessity of planning control realise the effect of the interdependence of buildings and landscape, and so on. That interdependence depends very much on the farmer being a born farmer.
Too often today, the owner of land may not be someone who owns it in the Victorian sense of land ownership. It might be owned by a company registered in London. Often the farmer of the intensive farming unit knows nothing about the land. He may well be an accountant. When one is dealing with people of that ilk, it is different, in planning terms, from dealing with the traditional farmer to whom we are accustomed.
I join the Minister in the tribute that he paid—

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the change in the ownership of land and bear in mind that it might have been the taxation policies of the previous Government that caused land to fall into the hands of urban types and accountants?

Mr. Oakes: I do not think so. Part of the land policy of the Labour Government was to prevent that sort of change. Unfortunately, some of the Acts which we were engaged in passing may soon


disappear. However, in this rare and happy atmosphere I do not want to be drawn into polemics of that kind.
I join the Minister in paying tribute to agriculture for its enormous productivity. That is something that is often forgotten in the House. In another place, Lord Winstanley revealed what to me was a startling fact, namely, that the value in money terms of our agricultural production is greater than that of Australia and New Zealand put together. That is a remarkable tribute to our farmers, our agriculture and the agrochemical industry. That level of production must impose problems on a tiny island with a population of over 50 million. The British people are huddled together on a tiny island with scarce land resources. It is obvious that such a high level of production must have an impact upon the environment.
The report deals extremely well with some of the problems that have arisen and the way in which they have been handled. In paragraph 1.8 on page 3, the Commission says:
We were not persuaded that sufficient attention was being paid to the pollution that might be caused by agriculture. That problems might arise was recognised, but we were left with the impression that such problems were regarded as secondary in importance and as unavoidable concomitants of food supply. The approach appeared to us to beg the real question: whether the changes that have occurred, or are likely to occur, in agricultural practices are such as to call for new attitudes in dealing with the consequential problems of pollution or even, perhaps, for some constraints on these practices.
That paragraph is a warning light that we must fairly quickly consider some of the problems that have arisen because of the intensive nature of our agriculture. The use of chemicals has enabled us to obtain extremely high productivity. Inevitably, that must have an impact on the environment, and that means an impact on us all, not least those who live in the countryside.
I shall concentrate on the environmental aspects of the report. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who will reply to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, will deal with the agricultural aspects. There is one environmental aspect that neither the Minister nor I can deal with, namely, amenity. It is of great

importance and comes within the purview of the Department of the Environment. In paragraph 1.15, the Royal Commission observes that it was excluded from considering the amenity aspects of pollution and agriculture. We must not ignore amenity, even though it was excluded from the Commission's purview.
Tourism is another important factor. That includes tourism which attracts people from abroad, and that which prevents people from going abroad. It has an enormous impact on our economy. There is no doubt that the English countryside is one of the prime sources of amenity for British people.
The Minister will remember that shortly before the general election in May 1979 there was controversy about Exmoor. He will be aware of that because Exmoor is near to his constituency. Land that had been traditionally used as amenity land was being ploughed up. An inquiry was established under the chairmanship of Lord Porchester. Much consideration was given to the problem and it was being resolved. Difficulty arose when the election came along and the Bill that was being prepared passed into abeyance. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the future of that Bill, the problem of Exmoor and the good balance that was achieved by Lord Porchester between amenity interest and agricultural interest in the area.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I support what the right hon. Gentleman says about amenity value. Does he agree that the impact of mass tourism may itself constitute a pollutant that is as damaging to the countryside and agricultural land as some of the pollutants that we are discussing?

Mr. Oakes: I readily accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Mass tourism can well be a pollutant. Again, it is a matter of achieving the right balance. The British people have the right to enjoy the British countryside without damaging it and without being a nuisance in it. As a former education Minister, I think that a considerable amount should be done in schools, especially in urban areas, to teach children what the countryside is about. They should be taught its value. They should learn, for example, that a herd of cows are not a group of wild animals on a ranch but animals that are


owned by someone who doing an important job.
That brings me to the first point that I intend to make on the report. I shall begin in reverse order, by considering the effect of the environment on agriculture rather than the effect of agriculture on the environment. That is dealt with towards the end of the report. Any disturbance of pollution that occurs has its impact on farmers, on the land and on the whole of agriculture. The effect in those areas is probably much greater than on the rest of us.
There was a problem in any constituency. Some petrol additive escaped into the River Mersey. That caused the death of thousands of sea and other birds, and there was a chain reaction. There were no birds left to eat the insects and pests that trouble the farmer. Such an incident has an impact on agriculture. Chemical factories near to agriculture can have a disturbing effect on foliage and on the farmers' crops.
Paragraphs 7.17 and 7.18 deal with the experiment carried out by the Countryside Commission to consider the interrelationship between agriculture and the urban fringe. The experiment was referred to by Lord Winstanley, as chairman of the Countryside Commission, in another place. It is vital that the experiment is continued. It must not be one of the casualties of the Government's axe on expenditure.
I declare an interest. The experiment is taking place not in my constituency but near to it—in fact, between Huyton and St. Helens. The authorities involved are Knowsley and St. Helens. There is no doubt that a great deal of farming land is affected when it is, in close proximity to urban areas. There is straightforward vandalism. There are thuggery, vandalism, and deliberate and malicious damage. Unfortunately, that takes place in this world. We can only try to eliminate that by punishment and education.
There is a tremendous amount of unwitting vandalism in the countryside. That type of vandalism is not restricted to gates being left open or the belief that if a field is not manifestly growing potatoes or cabbage, for example, it is waste land and one can do what one likes on it. Damage is inflicted by those

who live in urban areas who travel into the countryside with the boots of their cars full of rubbish and tip it in the countryside. Some of it is eaten by animals. It sticks in animals' throats, and the result is enormous cost to the farmer. There is a need for much research to be undertaken in that area—for example, research into what leads people to do that and how it can be avoided. How can local authorities help to avoid it? How can the education system help to avoid it?
I am certain that the Countryside Commission's experiment in the St. Helens-Knowsley area will be of considerable value to farmers throughout the country and throughout Europe. Indeed, it will be of value to the whole of the world. It is a problem that concerns not only Britain but many other countries.
I turn to some of the specific recommendations in the report. Chapter III is especially important. It deals with crop spraying and aerial spraying. The Minister referred to the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I pay tribute to the British agrochemical industry. We have the most environmentally conscious and responsible agrochemical industry in the world. Its object is not merely to sell, regardless of the effects on the environment. A careful study is carried out before any product goes on to the market. The study having been made, the product goes through the British agrochemical system for supplying industry before it is let loose on the public. So there is a tremendous record there.
The report points to a deficiency, or a problem, in the application of pesticides, fungicides or herbicides and the quantities that are applied to the land. In this connection, a tremendous amount of work can be done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and agricultural colleges. Farmers can be taught the importance of using just the right quantity of pesticides and no more. There has not been a great take-up of the pamphlets that have been produced, but farmers can be taught that just the right amount, and not one for the pot, so to speak, is what is needed.
Farmers could also be made aware that pesticides should be administered at just the right time, such as during the life cycle of the insect or the fungus, so


that constant spraying is avoided. That is clearly important to the farmer from the point of view of cost. He does not want to spend a lot of money on chemicals that he does not need. It is important for Britain as a whole because of the cost of producing this material, which is largely petrochemical based. It is also important for the environment, as the report points out, because the spin-off from over-spraying means that the chemical runs off the land on to other people's land or into the water supply, with effects that we know nothing about at present. It is waste all the way along the line.
Some time ago I saw an excellent programme on BBC television called "Tommorow's World". Other hon. Members may have seen it. It portrayed a new spraying device which ensures that the liquid goes on to the leaves of the plant and does not run into the ground or on to the leaves of other people's plants. It may be something to do with the electrostatic process about which the Minister spoke earlier, but I am not technically competent to know whether that is true. The report points to a defect here, and by administrative means, and by using the advice and facilities of the Minstry of Agriculture in particular, much could be done without any expenditure.

Viscount Cranborne: I have listened with keen attention to what the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has been saying. I agree wholly with his observations on the importance of timing the application of pesticides and fungicides, but does he accept that over the last few years the increased application of fungicides, especially on cereal crops, has had a remarkable affect on yield? As a consequence, farmers will be encouraged to apply more fungicide than they have in the past.

Mr. Oakes: Unlike the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), I am not an expert on agriculture. What he said may apply to one individual, but there are circumstances in which too much chemical can be sprayed on the crop, with unforeseen results for the environment. That is the central point that the report tried to make in an attempt to persuade farmers not to waste their own money.
Another point that comes out clearly from chapter III of the report—this must inevitably mean public expenditure—is the vital need for more research into the application of pesticides and fungicides and the interreaction of different chemicals put on to the same piece of land. More research is needed into the effect of chemicals running off the land and getting into the water supply or other places where they should not be. Clearly that will cost money, but it will be money well spent.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman says that this research will cost money, and I have no doubt that it will, but does he not agree that most of the expense will be carried by the private sector, which is already investigating this?

Mr. Oakes: If, when the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) mentions the private sector, he means the agrochemical industry. I agree that a great deal of research is done by that industry, but more needs to be done by others. There must be some public expenditure, whether by the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment or all three. A lot of public money needs to be spent in addition to the considerable sums of money spent by the agrochemical industry on research and development.
The other matter that is dealt with in some detail in chapter III of the report is the vexed question of aerial spraying, which is becoming more prevalent because of its beneficial effects for the crops. However, aerial spraying must inevitably have its dangers. Some of that spray escapes from where it ought to be and goes on to neighbours' land, where it manifestly ought not to be. Many difficulties arise between neighbours because of aerial spraying.
The report suggests some form of licensing. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the proposal to license the pilots of the aircraft who do the spraying and licensing to control the conditions in which spraying should take place. I appreciate that it is difficult to give notice to a neighbour when one is about to spray. One may give notice that spraying will be carried out on Saturday morning, and on Saturday morning


it is pouring with rain and spraying cannot be done, because the right conditions are needed. The wind needs to be in the right direction, and so on.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I entirely understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. But when calling for licensing perhaps he would care to bear in mind that in 1976 there were approximately 116 complaints, most of which related to low-flying aircraft. On the other hand, the report clearly establishes that about 130,000 sorties are flown each year, so the ratio of complaint to sortie is very licensing.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I entirely understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. But when calling for licensing perhaps he would care to bear in mind that in 1976 there were approximately 116 complaints, most of which related to low-flying aircraft. On the other hand, the report clearly establishes that about 130,000 sorties are flown each year, so the ratio of complaint to sortie is very small.

Mr. Hawkins: May I interrupt on exactly the same point? I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about aerial spraying in the circumstances that he has outlined. However, will he bear in mind that there are large tracts of land, especially in the eastern counties, where aerial spraying is probably the cheapest way of applying pesticides, particularly when the farmer cannot get on to heavy land? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister, who mentioned his previous incarnation, will remember, when a decision is made to erect more power lines across the fenlands, that they prevent aerial spraying and are a great hazard.

Mr. Oakes: Both the hon. Member for Grantham and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) have great knowledge of farming. I fully appreciate that there are places where the most economic way to apply pesticides is by aerial spraying, especially where it is desirable not to have a heavy vehicle running over the land, making it heavier still.
On the other hand—this may be controversial—as well as considering the weather in connection with aerial spraying it is important, especially in a high

amenity area, to ensure that aerial spraying does not take place on a spring bank holiday Monday, however excellent weather conditions may be. On such a day the whole area is usually full of tourists, who have gone to enjoy the countryside and do not want to have chemicals rained on them or the drone of low-flying aircraft spoiling their one day out in the countryside. That is a consideration to which regulations ought to apply. Town and country must try to live together, and licensing would assist.

Mr. John Home Robertson: May I return briefly to the point made by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne)? He said that for certain cereal varieties it is necessary to go on and on spraying fungicides. That is partly because farmers are continuing to grow outclassed varieties of cereals. The development of new varieties that are resistant to, for instance, mildew is perhaps being held back by the fact that one area in which the Government are cutting back on expenditure is on plant breeding institutes. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Oakes: I should love to comment, but I shall leave such matters to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and the Minister. Quite frankly, it is an agricultural question that I am not competent responsibly to answer.
The Minister slightly glided over a point of controversy, and that is perhaps understandable. There is the controversial recommendation at paragraph 8.20 that intensive factory farming should be subject to planning control. I agree absolutely. It should be subject to ordinary planning control. I am talking not about general agricultural development but about intensive factory farming units.
On page 27 of the report there is a map of the intensity of fowl production in this country. The Minister will note from that map that the most intensive areas coincide with the most populated areas—Merseyside in Lancashire, the West Midlands, the whole of the Home Counties and London.
Factory farming units cannot be regarded as farms, but they can be sited cheek by jowl with residential developments because of the loophole that they are agricultural. That should not be


allowed to continue. The Minister should consider the problem as a matter of urgency, as he told us yesterday that he is actively engaged in considering the general development order.
The exclusion of these factory farm units comes about because of part 6 of the general development order. Having had the result of the Royal Commission's report and heard the views from the other place and this House, it would be helpful if, before the order comes before the House, measures were considered to exclude intensive factory farming, so that ordinary planning permission was required for that type of development.

Mr. King: It is a matter not for legislation but for an order laid before the House. Without prejudice to whatever our view may be about our intensive livestock units, it would be quite wrong to confuse an order that has to do with certain relaxations and normal minor domestic improvements with such a fundamental issue.
I can answer the right hon. Gentleman straight away. As a point of principle, we would not atempt to fuse the two issues in one order. They should be dealt with separately. There is no need for urgency to combine the two orders. It is positively desirable that they should be kept quite separate.

Mr. Oakes: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but he is hoping to produce the consultation paper on the order within the next few weeks. Nevertheless, perhaps in the next Session measures can be introduced to deal with the exclusion of factory farms from the exemption provisions that agriculture generally enjoys.
I accept that there is a problem of definition, but I believe that the report is referring to the production of fowls, eggs, pig meat, and so no, which is virtually divorced from the land. A farm needs soil. If soil is not directly needed in part or in whole for any part of the year, can that establishment be called a farm? Surely, it is a factory.
Even in my urban constituency of Widnes, I have that problem. In the little bit of green belt that we have there is a mobile home site, which the local environ-

mental health officer tells me is a model of its kind. It is superbly run, with expensive mobile homes and a happy and contented population. It is attached to a large house, which was once a farm. A firm came in that is not noted for its agricultural expertise and set up a farming unit for fowls within yards of the mobile homes. The slurry is carted away in wheelbarrows and dumped outside. Not only is there a problem of smell; in the summer there is an enormous problem with flies.
No responsible farmer would behave in that way, but with a factory farm of that nature there are immediate environmental problems. I wrote to the environmental health officer for Knowsley, but he could do nothing, because such a factory can be set up without planning consent. His powers under the Public Health Act 1936 are limited mainly to giving advice on keeping the slurry in tanks.
The legislation needs tightening up. There should not be that sort of development cheek by jowl with residential development. The report is right in its recommendations. There are problems of definition, but I have attempted in a humble way to define soil and land. I am sure that in consultation with the NFU and the industry, the Government am sure that, in consultation with the definition to cover factory farming.
The other problem with intensive livestock farming is the disposal of the effluent. In normal circumstances, the biblical injunction to return to the land waste from the land is right, good and proper, but it is a question of balance. The slurry from an intensive farming unit is often put on the land because that is the cheapest way to dispose of it. It is not necessarily for the benefit of the land. There are problems of pathogens, contamination, fouling water supplies, flies and smell. We must also consider the use of rain guns for the disposal of slurry which is mentioned in paragraph 5.55. Local environmental health officers have a key role to play.
To sum up, the report puts more responsibility on to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be concerned not only with the production of food but with the environment. I agree. There would be severe difficulties if the man from the Ministry came from


Marsham Street. He would not leave the same rapport with the farmer as the man from the Ministry of Agriculture. The farmer may disagree with him as a bowler-hatted bureaucrat, but he would disagree even more with the man from the Department of the Environment. I can see the force of putting added responsibility on the Minister of Agriculture to be concerned as much with pollution as with production. It is the Ministry responsible for dealing with pollution.
There is a way out for the Government—through the role of the environmental health officer. The report does not pay sufficient regard to the important role that local authorities could play, particularly in factory farms but also on the whole question of pollution by agriculture.
I declare an interest, although by no means a pecuniary one. For a number of years I have been the vice-president of the Environmental Health Officers' Association. The association would welcome the responsibility and opportunity to help farmers and the community by being more involved with the question of agricultural pollution. It has the advantage of being subject to local control. If it tried to be bureaucratic or offensive, there are elected councillors to whom the farmers or those complaining about the pollution could go. Those councillors are on the spot if a breakdown occurs—they do not come from the regional office or from Whitehall but they live in and understand the community.
The Government should look into the question of a more positive role for local authorities' environmental health officers to play on the question of agricultural pollution. I add the rider that if they are asked to do so, the money must follow that decision. The money must flow from Whitehall so that the job can be done by local government officers.
It has been useful to have this debate. I appreciate fully that the Government cannot make snap judgments or on-the-spot conclusions so early after the issue of the report. It would not be right and proper for them to do so. The debate has given the House and the other place the opportunity to express our views fairly. I am grateful for the opportunity that the Government have provided.

Mr. Peter Mills: I declare an interest; I am somewhat concerned with agriculture. I found the report not only interesting but extremely useful. However, it confirmed some of my fears. Changes are taking place. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had been in agriculture for as long as I have—far longer than I like to think about—you would realise the enormous changes that have taken place over the last 30 or 40 years, particularly in stocking rates and fertiliser applications—letalone in sprays. One wonders what one did in years gone by without all the modern aids and the enormous application of fertilisers and sprays. It is true that yields were considerably down, and there would have been serious consequences for food production if we had not used these methods.
All the changes are bound to have an effect on the environment and to lead to pollution in some cases. We have to admit that. It is well to consider the problems and act where we can. When we look at the recommendations, we should be honest and admit that the large number of recommendations would entail considerable expense if they were carried out. That fact must be borne in mind in these difficult days.
I believe that it is a question of balance; that is the solution to the problems. If the balance were wrong in the South-West, other industry, attractions and people would be upset, let alone the effect on the environment in the area. The South-West is an area of great beauty and it has good facilities for the tourist industry. There is excellent fishing and little pollution, yet it is a great agricultural area. There is more intensive farming, more fertiliser application, more effluent, more silage waste—which is probably the most deadly of all waste products—more fencing and less freedom for the holidaymaker than ever before.
We should understand that, particularly when we consider how expensive agriculture has become, together with the need to protect. All these factors increase the rural smells and movement of waste products in the villages. They are to the detriment of urban people as well as those who live in the villages. Therefore, we have to think carefully about getting the balance right.
Let me tell the House a true story, which illustrates how inconsiderate some farmers are. In one village—I shall not name it—a large slurry tanker, which is commonly called a "smelly nelly" in the trade, did not have its lid screwed down. Those with experience in farming will know of the horrible smelly movement as the slurry goes up and down. When the driver of the tanker came to traffiic lights, he pulled up smartly and the slurry shot out all over people who were on the pavement. There is no doubt that many similar cases arise from people being careless and not considering other people.
The examples that I have given add up to stresses, possible clashes and some pollution. Getting the balance right is not easy, yet I believe that it has to be done. I believe that the report will help. It is important to realise that agriculture has to intensify and to produce as much as it can from a given acre. After all, we are losing between 60,000 and 70,000 acres of good land per year. A hungry nation must intensify; economic pressures demand it. It is no good going to the bank manager and saying "I am going to farm in a dog-and-stick manner." He will reply "No, you have to work hard and produce as much as you can. You have to reduce that overdraft, Mills." My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) asks "Who is Mills?" Some people might know who he is.
There is no doubt that intensive production is here to stay. As a result, the consumer has cheaper and more abundant food. That factor must be considered as well. I believe that we can overcome the problems and difficulties by good sense and, above all, by tolerance. I agree with the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) that farmers should be careful before siting intensive production units too near urban areas or coastal villages. I understand that most of the work is carried out on a voluntary basis but that some authorities insist on receiving planning applications.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will define the business of intensive production units when he winds up the debate. It is not an easy matter. The residents near such units must remember—this is a typical West

Country phrase—that we cannot all live on fresh air and the view. Many people believe that we can. People have to work and produce agricultural products. It causes smells and effluent problems. People have to be tolerant.
I turn to the recommendation on page 189 of the report, which says that class VI of the general development order should be amended to exclude intensive livestock units. We shall need to have a definition of intensive livestock units. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to make clear the Government's view about that matter. It is important to know where we stand, and I am sure that he will give us a clear explanation.
I hope that voluntary methods will be used before there is any legislation on the matter. As one or two hon. Members have said, the NFU plays a big role in encouraging its flock—the farmers—to co-operate. Only one or two farmers on Exmoor have been difficult about those problems. If sufficient pressure is applied by other farmers and by the National Farmers Union, we can get those farmers to understand the problems and to act responsibly. That is far better than legislation.
I now wish to turn to two specific problems that have been mentioned. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this will not be too unpleasent for you. I refer to the use of poultry manure as a cattle-feed ingredient. This is an interesting subject for those of us who are in the business, although perhaps it is a rather smelly and unpleasent subject for those who are not.
The use of poultry manure as a feed has a lot to commend it. We can use it, and it should be used. That would help to solve the problem. I am pleased that a new technique has been developed, called a "bio-fermenter". It takes manure and changes it by natural processes—under controlled temperatures and air conditions—into something that can be used as an animal feed and fertiliser. That might be a useful way forward.
I should like to hear from the Minister whether he knows of this method and whether he will give it his blessing. It can produce a substitute for proteins. Poultry manure can provide 30 per cent. of feed requirements. Waste material is


converted and recycled and is then fed to cattle, pigs and poultry.

Mr. Hawkins: If my hon. Friend has time to visit the fens, in Norfolk, I can show him a recycling factory. That factory gave me a tremendous amount of trouble until the smells were corrected. Recycling can now take place without any smell.

Mr. Mills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me. I understood from the brochure that the products were free of all smells. It may sound frivolous, but much good can come out of recycling some of the waste products of intensive units. Valuable proteins can be saved and effluent problems can be overcome.
The problems of urban fringes are well known, and remedies must be found. If one looks at the acres of ground surrounding our cities and towns, one may notice a disturbing factor. Coming into London by train or car, one can see acres of land that are sterile and cannot be used for agricultural production. The test is that one can see horses grazing. That means that the land is out of production because urban dwellers roam all over it and leave their waste. They generally spoil any opportunities for agricultural production. That is a serious problem that should be considered.
There is a need for greater understanding and for stricter control over the tipping of rubbish. Dogs should be kept under control. Farmers cannot keep flocks of sheep anywhere near some urban areas. In the South-West we have a similar problem. Perhaps hon. Members do not realise that thousands of holidaymakers come into the South-West. They leave an appalling amount of rubbish along the roadside. One has only to go along the A30 or A303 to see that farmers are faced by a grave problem. People use the fields as toilets and picnicking areas. They leave their waste there. Cattle and sheep pick up that waste and some of them have to be put down, because they have eaten something that they cannot digest. That must be looked into, because more and more cars are coming into the South-West. The need for common sense and, above all, for more toilet facilities along the roadside is amazing.
I must tell hon. Members another joke that might interest them. Along the roads

in the South-West one sees signs saying "Toilets three miles ahead". People pant on. They see a sign saying "Toilets two miles ahead", and then another saying "Toilets one mile ahead". At last one arrives. The problem is that there are not enough. If we are to have vast numbers of tourists coming into the South-West and other areas, facilities should be provided.
Finally, I turn to the problem caused by drainage to rivers. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rightly gave many grants to improve the drainage of agricultural land. Water rushes off the fields and passes through small streams into the main river. This year—particularly in my part of the world—we have seen the effects of drainage in a way that we have never seen before. There is tremendous flooding and many towns and villages are flooded as a result of drainage higher up. Again, that must be looked into carefully. Perhaps we need a holding area for the flood water, in order to save some of the towns that lie alongside rivers. Farmers need that drainage. However, the water is drained off the land so quickly that it causes considerable flooding. That is a growing problem, and perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to the Ministry's views.
I believe that the revision of discharge consent conditions comes under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Angling organisations are worried that that Act will lead to a permanent downgrading of river quality standards, by legitimising all present sub-standard effluent discharges. Perhaps the Minister can answer that point. I am sorry to be a trial to him, but that is what he is here for.
I welcome the report. It is a good report and it is well worth reading. It reads well. Let us see what can be done by encouragement and by getting the balance right. Let us use tolerance before bringing in any more legislation.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
1. Petroleum Revenue Tax Act 1980
2. Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980


3. Representation of the People Act 1980
4. Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980
5. Child Care Act 1980
6. Foster Children Act 1980
7. Ardveenish Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1980.
8. Forth Ports Authority Order Confirmation Act 1980
9. Forth Ports Authority (No. 2) Order Confirmation Act 1980
10. Inverness District Council Order Confirmation Act 1980
11. Kirkcaldy District Council Order Confirmation Act 1980
12. Lochaber District Council Order Confirmation Act 1980
13. Strathkelvin District Council Order Confirmation Act 1980
14. West Lothian District Council Order Confirmation Act 1980
15. British Railways Act 1980

AGRICULTURE AND POLLUTION

Question again proposed.

Mr. Mark Hughes: As an urban dweller, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take you and the House on a journey into the countryside. The first thing that we wish to see this autumn is a field of waving corn. As the report highlights, that which most urban dwellers believe to be a beautiful agricultural scene is different when looked at throughout the season. The field of waving corn had the straw burnt from it the year before. Perhaps it was sprayed with a herbicide in order to kill the previous crop. Specially dressed seed may have been drilled directly into the ground. No one bothers to plough, as that might upset the topsoil. That seed, unless given vast quantities of nitrogen and regularly sprayed with fungicide, would be unlikely to give a reasonable return on any money invested. Farmers are forced along the treadmill of more pesticides, more fungicides and more nitrogen inputs. One looks in vain in that field for wild bees. They were killed off in the early spring when spraying against pests took place. One looks in vain for mushrooms—the fungicide saw to that. There is no point in looking for wild flowers—selective weed killers did them a mischief many years ago.
The field of golden corn is not what it appears. One looks over the fence and sees a little lamb. There is a problem—it has scab because the farmer is no longer allowed to use Dieldrin in the dip. Certain sheep diseases are returning because, under the control of noxious chemicals, farmers are not allowed to use Dieldrin. The sheep, poor animal, is now itching because the town dwellers have imposed limitations on farming.
We look more hopefully at the nearby calf. If it is not being fed on reconstituted poultry manure, it is being fed on silage, either of which can do a major mischief to the countryside. If it happens to be a Canadian Holstein, there is an above-average chance that its progeny will suffer from enzootic bovine leucosis before it is two and a half years old.
The Aberdeen Angus has been bred to the size of a Labrador dog. It is perfectly circular in terms of meat output, but it is not similar to our historic idea of how a beef animal should look. We have to look overseas to the Charolais or other such breeds.

Mr. Stephen Ross: There have been strenuous attempts to return to the original size of the Aberdeen Angus, and think that it has succeeded rather well.

Mr. Hughes: It has been improved, but there are still many Aberdeen Angus that are about the size of Dexters.
Around the corner we come across a massive pig unit. The chances are that Aujeszky's disease is rampant, while the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sits back saying that it must not do anything about Aujeszky's disease because there have not been enough cases.
In desperation, on this mythical journey, one sees a little babbling brook, stream or whatever. One must beware, because page 133, paragraph 5.20, of the report states:
From the point of view of both animal and human health the greatest hazard is posed by Salmonella. In one survey of 187 samples of cattle slurry, 20 yielded Salmonella; in another the slurry from 12 of 54 pig farms was found to be infected.
If you, Mr. Speaker, or your family were to drink that water, you could do yourself a major mischief, which the House would deeply regret.
That is the problem of modern farming. It appears to protect the countryside for the benefit of urban dwellers to


enjoy as visitors. The reality behind that euphemistic picture is often totally different. In the pursuit of essential economic objectives, the farmer is being forced to pursue more production, in many cases against his better landsman's judgment. He has to reject the old husbandman view in order to pursue profit, or, if not profit, at least to make ends meet.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with interest and sympathy. Will he tell us what part he thinks has been played in developing the process by, first, the cheap food policy that we used to have and still have to some extent and, secondly, the loss of agricultural land? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the loss of 20,000 hectares per year is not negligible, as the report states, but a serious matter?

Mr. Hughes: It is an important matter. One cannot lose 40,000 acres and forget about them. The cause is not to be found either in the pursuit of a deficiency payment scheme or in the present common agricultural policy. It is neither of those. The fault is that, to maintain relative incomes per head, the agricultural sector has no choice but to intensify its utilisation of every capital input. If it does not do that, the relative incomes in agriculture fall behind. Because of taxation and other reasons, there is an important leakage from the economic activities of agriculture. The yield per acre achieved by higher nitrogen input frequently ends as higher land values per acre for insurance companies and others to cover their necessary insurance risks. The increased gross yield is used as the measure of land values, rather than the increased net yield.
In considering the milk sector, the cereal sector, the sheep sector, and so on, the problems facing farming and agricultural pollution stem from the rat race of increasing production, even if the marginal improvement in money terms is only very slight. In trying to deal with inflation accounting and agricultural business, if land and the increment in land value is excluded, it is hard to see how farming can be profitable. The return on capital employed in agriculture is nothing like the sort of return that is needed and does not justify the increase in land prices that we have seen over the

past three years. The two are totally unrelated. The one is a function of inflation and the other is a function of a restricted guaranteed market. Whatever quantity is supplied, there is a guaranteed price.
Then there is the gap between the cow that will yield 1,600 gallons per lactation, if one stuffs in all the concentrate that one can afford at the front end, and the cow that will for a smaller input yield 1,200 gallons. It is rare that the exact economics of those two tradeoffs are worked out. The farmer is canalised into pursuing the one and he cannot easily escape into the low-cost low-input method of farming.
Much of the problem highlighted in the report comes from the way in which reliance on successive Governments, on deficiency payments and on grants has put the farmer in the frame of mind where more must mean more money. More product is the end. If that is to be achieved by polluting the soil, the air and everything else, so be it.
This is where the report is crucial. I hope that the farming community, for the first time, bearing in mind the other evidence that is growing, will check its impact upon its fellow men.
It is a disturbing factor to have brought home to us that the livestock excreta produced and untreated on farms in this country is approximately equivalent to the excretra of an additional 150 million human beings—three times as much as the muck produced by the human population. That is the measure of the intensification of agriculture over the last 20 or 30 years.
In these circumstances I urge upon the Government the recommendations in paragraph 8.30, on page 220 of the report:
46. Intensive livestock units should be regarded as industrial enterprises.
47. Treatment systems which reduce the smell problems that may he caused by the storage and spreading of animal wastes have been adopted to only a negligible extent on United Kingdom farms. Cost is an important factor; the intensive livestock rearing industry must come to accept the cost of pollution control.
I believe that it is no longer acceptable that the pursuit of this sort of farming is relieved of the pressure that "the polluter pays", and if the pollution is in the gross and aggravated form which


intensive units create there is a need for that polluter to be treated differently from sheep farmers on the uplands, where the droppings of the sheep are scattered over many acres. It is not the same industry or the same problem.
I hope that these recommendations and the use of animal wastes and the method by which they are treated, both logically and as sewage, are taken very seriously indeed by the Government.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Like other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I begin by congratulating the authors of the report on what they have done. The matters into which they have inquired are complex. They are important. In many instances they have not previously been investigated. Therefore, I think that we can say that the report makes a valuable contribution to our knowledge of these matters. It contains many recommendations which I for one hope will be reflected in Government policy in the future.
Any hon. Member who reads the report—indeed, any hon. Member who is familiar with agriculture—will be conscious of the great success that has been achieved over recent years by those who work in the industry. I refer to both farmers and agricultural workers. Their flexibility in work practices, their willingness to adopt new techniques and their excellent industrial relations have contributed very largely to the enormous increase in efficiency and productivity that has made British agriculture probably the leading agriculture industry in Europe.
I make here a point arising from what the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) has just said. One facet of this success is that one of the important contributory factors to this increase in productivity and efficiency has been a greatly extended use of intensive husbandry methods and of pesticides and other chemicals. It is remarkable that there has not been a commensurate increase in the environmental pollution attributable to this extended use. I take the point made by the hon. Member in his most valuable speech, but I think that we are entitled to say that, on the whole, the agricultural community has done very

well in this regard. I for one regard that community as one of the most responsible sectiions of our society as a whole.
I turn briefly to the cost implications of the recommendations. Clearly, if implemented, either fully or in part, many of them will cost substantial sums. Mention has already been made in the debate that agriculture is losing about 20,000 hectares of land per year. As the House knows, it is established policy, and one which we hope to carry through and achieve, to increase home production by about 2½ per cent. per annum. This policy of increasing home production on a diminishing land base inevitably results in an ever-extended and increased use of chemicals and pesticides and the methods of intensive husbandry.
This is an expensive business, and if the problem of the farmer is complicated by his being required, in too short a period, to shoulder too much of the financial implications contained in the report, we may find that the burden becomes intolerable. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the cost implications of the recommendations when he comes to consider which of them he wishes to adopt.
I should like to mention briefly three points that arise out of the report. The first is the practice of straw burning. I do not in any way recommend the discontinuance of this practice. Indeed, if the NFU code of practice is strictly adhered to, straw burning does not pose any significant hazard to the community as a whole. As hon. Members who are familiar with these matters will know, the practice has considerable advantages. It is a quick, convenient way of disposing of surplus straw. But there are disadvantages, which those who engage in farming should bear in mind.
The first is the obvious disadvantage that the NFU code of practice is not always adhered to and, therefore, there is a fire hazard. I was rather alarmed to read in the report that the Home Office was unable to give any clear information about the amount of fire damage attributable to the practice of straw burning.
There are other disadvantages attributable to this practice. I travel along the A1 every Friday on the way to my constituency. In the late summer months one


is conscious of the heavy belts of smoke that emerge from fields adjoining the A1. We should not be unaware of the disadvantages that are sometimes associated with the practice. As those of us who know something about wildlife will appreciate, there are also wildlife implications in the practice of straw burning.
Having said all that, however, I think that the practice is inevitable and that there is no reason to discontinue it. But straw itself is a resource which, in certain areas, is capable of an alternative use. In its most obvious form it is a source of energy. Hon. Members will know that there are boilers on the market which can be run with straw and which make a valuable contribution to the energy requirements of a farm. Perhaps more interestingly, there is now an alkali treatment which can be used to transform straw into acceptable animal feeding-stuff. In my constituency there is a successful plant which does just that.
Of course, the House is realistic about these matters. There are problems associated with the cost of collection and delivery of straw. Therefore, I think that no hon. Member would say that all farmers all the time should find these alternative uses satisfactory—in most cases, probably not. But I hope that the farming community will always be alert to the possibility of alternative use and that, whenever possible, it will adopt such alternative use.
The next specific point that I should like to touch on briefly is the question of aerial crop spraying. It is perhaps not surprising considering what a useful tool it is, that there has been a substantial increase in the practice of aerial crop spraying over the past six years. The report shows that in 1972 a total of 274,000 hectares of land were sprayed. In 1977 that had increased to 628,000 hectares, and obviously there has been a commensurate increase in the number of aircraft employed. In 1972 53 aircraft were employed, and in 1977 114 aircraft were used.
As the House will appreciate, having been responsible for much of it, there is a complicated and interlocking network of regulations, rules and codes of practice which regulate the safety and the method of conducting this practice. Whatever the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) may have said on behalf of the Opposition, on the whole the practice has

been carried on in considerable safety. I am not aware of any serious injury that has been caused by exposure to materials sprayed from aircraft. The report indicates, by way of a rough estimate, that each year slightly over 130,000 sorties are flown, and in 1976 only 116 complaints were made, of which the greater part related to low-flying aircraft. If that is so, and that is the evidence, I think that the House is entitled to say that the industry has been proceeding in a safe fashion.
But, as in all these things, there is room for improvement. In my constituency, over the past three years there have been two instances of pupils at a school having been exposed to material sprayed by aircraft—and, sadly, I might add, it was the same school on both occasions. Fortunately no damage was suffered by the pupils, but, as will be appreciated, great anxiety was caused to the parents, the teachers and the children involved. Therefore, I am in favour of making some improvement in the way in which the practice of crop spraying is conducted.
The recommendations in the report are, I think, basically reasonable. It is entirely reasonable that the giving of advance warning should be made mandatory. It is entirely reasonable to say that where it is not reasonably practicable to warn everybody involved there should be no spraying. It is right to say that there are certain areas where there can never be spraying because of the proximity of urban development. And, with regard to the detailed proposals in the report, I am in favour of the presence of a grounds man as recommended by the Commission. Also—and here I adopt the point made by the right hon. Member for Widnes—I think that advance notice not merely of the operation but of the nature of the chemical involved should be given to the local environmental health officers.
Having said that, and of course it is a slightly emotional subject, I come back to the proposition with which I started, namely, that on the whole the practice of aerial crop spraying has been conducted with great skill and with a high degree of safety.
The last point that I should like to make deals with the practice of intensive husbandry. I was, as I always am, greatly impressed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Durham. I am well aware that he approaches this matter with


a great deal of expertise, but there is one point that we should all bear in mind. We talk, perhaps in rather regretful terms, of not being able to adopt a practice of low cost, low output, and I understand the reason. But, leaving aside for a moment the milk industry, where quite different considerations apply, largely because there is no competition from abroad in liquid milk, the farming industry has no real alternative but to adopt these practices, namely, increased emphasis on chemicals, increased emphasis on pesticides and increased emphasis on intensive husbandry. The basic reason why the industry has no choice but to adopt these practices is that everybody else in every other country with which we trade adopts precisely the same approach, and it is impossible to deal with one industry in isolation from another.
The hon. Member for Durham makes a very good point. Of course, those responsible for intensive husbandry units should, at least in part, be responsible for the cost of controlling the pollution. I agree, but subject to this caveat and this proviso. In no sense are the operators of most of these plants culpable. They are merely responding to market forces. Therefore, if there is to be increased cost—

Mr. Mark Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman say, therefore, that in the early nineteenth century the Durham coal owners who employed women and childdren underground because their labour was cheaper were not culpable?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that that is a question I need deal with, because to employ children in the mines is clearly morally offensive and, therefore, those who do so are culpable. I refuse to accept that the same thing can be said of intensive husbandry.

Mr. Mark Hughes: So to arrange one's business that one pours poison upon the land and into the waters is, to my mind, to be equally culpable.

Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Member misunderstands the point that I am making. When I speak of culpability, I refer to the operation of the units themselves. I do not doubt that if polluting matter is poured unchecked into the

streams, those who do it are culpable. That is a different matter. I merely say that the production of a certain amount of animal waste and the problems associated with storing and disposing of it are an inherent characteristic of intensive husbandry. Clearly the problem has to be tackled, but it costs money, and the point that I seek to make is that some of the cost has to fall on the community as a whole, partly through increased consumer prices, and partly—I take up the specific point made in the report—through an improved grants system. This is dealt with at considerable length on pages 140 and 141 of this valuable report.
That brings me to my final point. As many hon. Members will know from their experience in their constituencies and elsewhere, intensive units are frequently found on the edge of urban development. Very often that is the fault not of the farmer but rather of the planner. Under existing legislation, an order can be made, I think under section 100 of the Public Health Act 1936, which closes the plant or substantially curtails its operation. Indeed, such an effect can be achieved under common law or by an application under the Prevention of Pollution Act. The point is that in many cases, and through no fault of the farmer, his activities can be either prevented or substantially curtailed.
The report suggests that where that has happened the court should have the power to award such compensation to be paid by the local authority as may reflect the degree of responsibility of the local authority, which in many cases is responsible for bringing the nuisance into being because it allowed close proximity between the unit and the urban development I agree with that, and that accords with my principles of ordinary justice.
This is a long report and I know that other hon. Members want to speak on this matter, perhaps at some length. Perhaps I might conclude as I began. It is a valuable report. It has been well written, well drafted and well thought out. It adds considerably to the volume of knowledge that we possess. I very much hope that many of its recommendations will be incorporated in Government policy.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I first start by declaring an interest as an


ex-farmer who gave up at the wrong time and last year had the gall of seeing his farm sold for about 10 times the price he had sold it for. I am thinking of the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), who probably does not have to go quite socap-in-hand to his bank manager, because no doubt the value of his property has risen considerably in the last few years. In addition, I am still a member of the National Farmers Union and have two sons employed in agriculture—I may add, on very low wages.
I agree that the report is a balanced one. It recognises the tremendous role played by agriculture in recent years and also the generally sympathetic attitude of the farming fraternity to our rural environment. As other hon. Members have said, however, farmers are under great pressures with regard to their enterprises remaining viable.
The other place debated this subject on 17 January, and the speeches were of a high quality. I was pleased to hear comments about my noble Friend Lord Winstanley, who has been quoted at some length.
I used to run 60 breeding sows in the open, but in time I gave up because I knew that the only way in which I would make a reasonable return would be to put them inside, penned individually on concrete—just as one can see from the picture in the report—and run a boar around them every six months or so. I looked at various examples and disliked them so much that I got out of the business. It was probably a good thing, because the pig industry has had a rough time over the last three or four years and pig farmers are just about breaking even at the present time. Those who have remained in pig farming must have the patience of Job.
I do not blame farmers who have adopted intensive practices. As the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, it is a question of practical economics. I disagree with the report in that I believe that the trend out of livestock farming will increase sharply over the next 20 years and that there will perhaps be a return to intensive cultivation of vegetables and some crops that have not yet been seriously tried in this country. One of my constituents happens to be a man who has played a large part in developing the cultivation of sweet

corn in Britain. He has now branched out into growing garlic and is successfully selling it to the French. Therefore, there are other areas in which we could experiment.
To its great sense, the House of Commons stocks some of the wines that are produced on the Isle of Wight. There are three vineyards there, although, of course, I know that there are others in other parts of the country. But I do not believe that land will necessarily be used so extensively for livestock farming in the future. It is because I believe that in the years ahead we shall tend to become more vegetarian that it is so important to preserve our best arable land from urban development. I fear that the Government may be too lenient in this respect, and I should like them to be much tougher.
I agree that a lot can be done about land on the verges of our towns, and a good example has been set by the Countryside Commission in Lancashire. I believe that we should impose a site value tax on some of that land, because in this way it could be put to beneficial use. At present, too many people are allowing land to lie idle because they expect to receive planning consent sometime in the future and to hit the jackpot. If they were paying some tax to the local authorities. I am sure that the land would be put to better use than just allowing horses to graze on it.
The attitude of the Government to the green belt is perhaps suspect. I think that they may allow some development—

Mr. King: Mr. King indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: The Minister shakes his head, and I am delighted, because I hope that we do preserve our green belt. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that allotments are under attack in the Government's latest Bill. In addition, he has rejected Lord Porchester's Exmoor proposals, which were referred to earlier.

Mr. King: It was a throw-away line, but I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the impression that allotments are under attack. What we are doing—I would have thought that this would have the full support of the united Liberal Party—is giving greater discretion to local authorities to make determinations for


themselves and not telling them that Whitehall knows best.

Mr. Ross: I should like much longer to deal with that answer, but perhaps I can deal with it when we debate the Bill. I agree that the Government are giving local authorities power to decide for themselves, but the first thing that they will do is to sell off the allotments because they will be so short of money that they will have to. That will occur just at the time when queues of people want allotments. The Government should allocate money to provide more allotments. I am on the side of the Allotment Society in that regard. If we really believe that we should grow more for ourselves, this is surely an area that we should encourage.
Voluntary agreements are to be welcomed, but when pressure on our limited resources is so great I believe that the Government should provide the necessary legal backing. Surely there is adequate land in our inner urban areas to put a stop to the continuing sprawl into our fast diminishing countryside, particularly in the South and West of England.
We could also do more to preserve our existing hedgerows, especially those that may be lost during road improvement schemes. This matter was raised only yesterday at the townswomen's guild in my constituency. One woman came forward with a suggestion because our county council planned to remove a very nice hedge in order to widen a road. Surely we can try to transplant such hedges before they are destroyed. The National Coal Board has carried out experiments in transplanting trees at a much older age than we used to think possible. Perhaps the same can be done with hedges. If not, at least the new hedges should be planted before the old ones are destroyed, because it is sad to see them being ripped out in that way. In addition, it destroys the habitat of many of our wild animals and birds.
I believe that the new intensive livestock units that are developed in inner urban areas ought to come under stricter planning control and that they should be rated as industrial premises. The right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) described one that exists in his constitu-

ency. I do not think that the rating system should apply when they form part of an agricultural holding in a rural area, but we could perhaps change the rules whereby a building of 5,000 sq. ft. does not come under planning control and two years later someone can add another 5,000 sq. ft.
That happened in my constituency. It was not an incomer but a man whose family goes back many generations. He did it much to the annoyance of people who bought houses nearby. In that instance, I believe that the two-year rule should be removed, and I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
People who choose to live in rural communities must accept some smell and noise from time to time. They never seemed to think of that when I was farming. I remember being telephoned at 3 o'clock in the morning by someone who complained bitterly about the noise of my calves. He told me "You never feed your animals." I tried to explain that I had taken the calves away from their mothers and that they would bellow for two or three days. The reply that I received was "Well, the sooner you move and go to live in a town, the sooner we shall all be pleased." I took the hint and went. But my farm was there long before that person came to live in the area, and I felt that I had a right to some priority.
One of the greatest problems that agriculture must face is the return of the rabbit. Previous Governments should not have withdrawn money from the clearance societies. The amount of food that rabbits consume, both grass and grain, is quite enormous I believe that we shall rue the day that we allowed them to come back in such numbers.
I now turn to the chapter on pesticides, which is my main interest in the report, and the continued use of what is described as organ chlorines on grassland and root crops. The report states that this is on the increase, and it publishes a table which seems to support what it says.
The House will know of the tragic effect that DDT and Dieldrin has had on the number of breeding sparrow hawks and peregrine falcons. In fact, I believe that Britain is now the only place where the peregrine falcon breeds and that it no longer breeds in Belgium. My right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk


and Peebles (Mr. Steel) tells me that they are on the increase in his constituency, and I am delighted to hear it. The peregrine falcon almost left us during the 1950s and early 1960s.Although it has shown a welcome sign of revival, it has been limited to a few parts of the country. If the fear that is expressed in the report is true—that the increasing use of pesticides on arable crops and grassland is continuing—a welcome trend may well be reversed.
I should like to quote from a brief issued by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The RSPB has magnificent support throughout Britain and has over 300,000 members. It is a great joy for me to see young people taking such an interest in bird life—a matter about which many people are concerned. I quote:
Many birds such as thrushes and blackbirds will feed upon the contaminated invertebrates, and are in turn the food of sparrow hawks and other predators. A detailed study of the sparrow hawk in northern England and Scotland has shown that although Dieldrin residues in eggs have decreased since 1972, the end of the main organ chlorine usage, DDE residues have increased in a number of areas. Since the sparrow hawks and most of their prey are resident in the study areas, the source of the DDE is likely to be local. This contamination is considered to be one of the main reasons why the species has failed to re-establish itself over much of eastern England, following the pesticide crash of the 50s and 60s.
The conclusion that can be drawn is that the dangerous and persistent pesticide DDT is still being used on farmland, and this must he viewed with considerable concern since reliable and less dangerous alternatives are readily available. Many bodies including the RSPB agree with the Commission when they state their unhappiness with the continued threat to wildlife through the use of organochlorines and we strongly support the recommendation that the ACP should urgently review the use of these chemicals.
I have been asked by the RSPB to put one or two suggestions to the Minister. I quote again:
The Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) examined the use of organochlorines, including DDT, and reported in 1964 and again in 1969. The Committee recommended that the use of DDT should be reviewed, and withdrawn wherever possible. The Government of the day accepted those recommendations.
But DDT is still in use in some parts of the country.
The two ACP reports further recommended that constant surveillance of all organoch-

lorines and other pesticides be maintained, and that the residue levels in people, their diets, wildlife and the environment should be monitored.
I ask whether that is actually happening.
Since the two reports the ACP has not commented further on the use of organochlorines, and in particular DDT. There is growing evidence—supported by the Royal Commission—that DDT is still in widespread use, and poses a real threat to wildlife. We would like an adequate assurance that the annual published reports on the results of monitoring organochlorine residues in the environment, foodstuffs etc, are to continue and that the monitoring of organochlorines in the natural environment is to be increased. Since alternative non-persistent pesticides are available, DDT should be withdrawn as a pesticide, particularly in agriculture.
Our wildlife, and seabirds in particular, faces ever-increasing hazards from pollution—whether it is from oil spillage in our river estuaries or whatever—and we are surely beholden to do all we can to protect it from pesticides used on land. I hope that my pleas will be heard and that action will be taken.
There is an urgent need to co-ordinate the operations of various bodies that deal with pesticides. I trust that the recommendations will be taken on board by the Government.
I also support the call from the Friends of the Earth and other bodies for more research into the use of organic systems in agriculture and horticulture. With the world supply of minerals in increasingly short supply, and with ever-rising costs, that is only common sense It is summarily dismissed in one paragraph of the report, and I regret that fact.
The report mentions fish farming, which is a hobby-horse of mine. With our rapidly deplenishing stocks in the sea, this new industry surely needs encouragement. If the water authorities, supported by the committee, are to demand the right to intervene and regulate their development, I fear that this necessary source of food is likely to go into reverse. I ask the Government not to give way too easily on some of the pleas that are now being made to them in this respect. The same remarks apply to watercress beds
My final remarks relate to straw burning, to which the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) referred. I am amazed at the way in which farmers waste straw. I have seen bales of straw


lying out in January and February. I find that incredible. Farmers have gone to the trouble of baling the straw, and then have not taken it inside. That costs a lot of money. Most farmers, as the hon. Member for Grantham said, follow the NFU code of practice. However, many thousands of yards of hedgerow have been needlessly destroyed through carelessness. That applied particularly in the hot summer of two or three years ago. Sometimes I think that it is not always accidental. Precious habitats have been lost in that way, fire brigades have been called out, and a great deal of local authority money has been spent unnecessarily.
My local branch of the NFU has successfully persuaded the county council to drop a clause in its Bill, which will come before the House shortly, giving legal effect to the code. The NFU persuaded the county council that it could monitor it itself. I hope that its faith in its members will be justified. Straw is a product of which we should make more use rather than burn the many thousands of tonnes that we do every year. I believe that we should spend more money on research into its uses rather than wantonly destroying it by burning.

Mr. Richard Body: I often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) when he speaks about agriculture. He and I stopped pig farming at the same time, and for the same reason.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is not unacquainted with a certain part of the Isle of Wight where the landscape is being transformed—with taxpayers' money. I can never understand the justice of taxpayers being coerced into giving a grant to a farmer to make his farm more profitable, although there may be a case for giving a grant to a farmer to compensate him for continuing with a hedgerow which would otherwise be less profitable.
All hon. Members have paid a tribute to the Royal Commission for the way in which the report has been produced. I found it not only interesting but, mercifully, most readable. The Royal Commission obviously was concerned about, and spent a considerable amount of time considering, the question of aerial spraying. I should like to comment on that.
There cannot be any constituency in the country where aerial spraying is practised more than in my constituency. There are far more arable acres there than in any other constituency. It is also totally flat and safe for pilots to spray aerially. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said, it is an area where it is necessary to use the method of aerial spraying, because other methods are more difficult on the land.
The matter is causing great concern in my constituency. The practice has increased enormously. A few years ago, only 50 aircraft were engaged in the practice. There are now twice that number. In recent years there has been a startling increase in perinatal deaths. The number of such deaths in South Lincolnshire is appreciably more than in the rest of the country. There seems to be no obvious reason for that. South Lincolnshire is a healthy area, longevity is common, there is good perinatal care in our health services, and our housing conditions are satisfactory. The South Lincolnshire area health council has carried out a study, but so far it has reached no conclusion.
What has concerned the council is that there is a measure of circumstantial evidence. There have been examples where mothers-to-be have been afflicted by aerial spray and then subsequently suffered the tragedy of a perinatal death. The Minister who is to reply to the debate may be aware that I have raised this subject with his Department. So far, not much progress has been made. I hope that the Department will not be complacent about it. There are some disturbing facts. If, as a result of the study, the accusing finger is eventually pointed at certain types of aerial spray, the Government may be condemned for being complacent about it at this stage.
Having said that, I do not wish to be thought critical of the pilots who are engaged in this sometimes very dangerous work. There have been deaths already, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West is only too well aware. The pilots are very careful, and in the main the companies concerned with this kind of contracting work take every care possible. However, I know quite a number of smallholders and small farmers who have had their crops sprayed—inadvertently. I appreciate—when their larger


neighbours have engaged contractors. I hope, therefore, that the recommendation of the Royal Commission that it be made mandatory that notice should be given to adjacent farmers will be implemented. There are rather too many large farmers in my constituency, I regret to say, who have a somewhat high-handed attitude towards their smaller neighbours. Claims which are made against the large farmers are not treated as sympathetically as they ought to be.
In the course of the debate, a great deal of attention has been paid to the paragraphs in the report relating to what is loosely called factory farming. I always regret it when supporters of factory farming say that this has all come about because of the demand by the housewife for cheap food. I do not think that it is altogether her fault. In my opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very largely responsible. In the last 30 years, hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers'money—an enormous sum in all—has gone towards paying for the cost of erecting intensive farming buildings. Some of it is paid by way of grantaid—a direct gift, as it were, from the taxpayers—but a substantial part of it goes out indirectly by way of tax reliefs.
I declare an interest in this matter, for only two or three years ago my holding was visited by an official of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I was not present at the time, but I am told that he was most helpful. He gave certain advice about putting up an intensive beef unit. I am given to understand that the grant of taxpayers' money that is on offer is quite substantial, but, better still, so long as the unit is reasonably profitable, the tax relief will also be very satisfactory. Why invest in pasture land, at more than £1,000 an acre, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a soft touch?
As I said at the outset, I used to have a pig herd. I got out of that activity because of unfair competition. I had to ask myself—as did the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—whether I should carry on with the traditional methods of stockman ship or go intensive. I thought that there would be no pleasure in going intensive.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I understand my hon. Friend's reasons for disliking intensive husbandry methods. He blames the

Revenue for its allowances, and one thing and another, but is it not true that, if did not adopt intensive methods of farming, he could not compete in pig meat with, for example, the Danes, who adopt these methods?

Mr. Body: I appreciate that such methods are used in Denmark, although my experience in that country suggests that they are not as extensive as some people might think.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was mistaken when, in his contribution earlier, he said rather sweepingly that every country has to do this and that, therefore, we must do it. I am concerned at the moment with a decision about an intensive beef unit. It would be a great mistake for me to contemplate that without the help of taxpayers' money and if at the same time we were to allow into this country the beef that would be available from the Argentine, from Uruguay and from Australia.
My hon. Friend may know that 80,000 head of Australian cattle have been burnt because there was no outlet in any world market—still less over here—for that meat. If I may say so, my hon. Friend was much mistaken in his remarks about beef, although I appreciate that he was on much stronger ground when speaking about pig meat and poultry.
Almost all our pig herds in this country are now going over to very large intensive units, as has already been pointed out. What disturbs me is that these units are getting larger and larger. The larger they become, the greater the problems of pollution. It would not be feasible for any of these large units, costing sometimes £100,000, to be erected if people were using their own money or if, like my hon. Friend the Member for Devon. West (Mr. Mills), they were going to their bank manager and borrowing money at the present interest rate of 20 per cent. These units are feasible only if a substantial part of the cost is underwritten by the taxpayer. We should all be particularly concerned with this matter—andno one more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone else who has in mind any cuts in public expenditure.
Some of the buildings that are being erected have not a very high degree of aesthetic appeal. Indeed, it is very sad


to see so many of the older farm buildings falling into decay and being replaced, at public expense, by rather ugly concrete constructions. Travelling around the countryside and seeing these new buildings, the taxpayer could say to himself "I have paid for these buildings to go up." He could also ask himself "Why should I pay for these buildings to go up?"
The sternest critics of factory farming are the stockmen, and certainly not the woolly-minded spinsters living in suburbia. Top-class stockmen—a diminishing band, I regret to say—feel very strongly about some of these practices. By "top-class stockman" I mean someone who will nurse a sickly calf or an ageing sow without the use of any drugs or who will take positive pleasure in looking after the stock in his charge.
I cannot believe that anyone but a moron can derive any positive pleasure from working in the semi-darkness of a battery house or walking up and down a line of sows that are tethered in one position for four months on end. That kind of practice does not advance the cause of good stockmanship. It is a great worry for those of us who want to see agriculture progress upon more satisfactory lines.
Pollution will increase as a result of some of the present factory farming practices. That must happen so long as units get larger and larger. The Government, by financing such a large proportion of the units, must ask themselves whether they are largely responsible for this potential increase in pollution. It cannot be enough for the Government simply to accept the recommendations set out in the Royal Commission's report. The Government need to ask themselves whether they should continue to underwrite the cost of factory farming.
If the State would stop distorting the cost of production—I think that it is the view of the present Front Bench that this is a philosophy of the rest of our thinking—a great deal of this problem of pollution would diminish and come down to a tolerable level. For 30 years we have pursued a policy of high-cost, high-output farming. That may have been right. But there may now be reasons, not only of pollution but of the finite nature of resources—fertilisers, oil and so forth—which make us think again and ask ourselves whether we should pursue not a wholly alternative approach but certainly a move towards a lower-cost and lower-output system of farming.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Like the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), I must declare an interest as a practising farmer. I was extremely interested in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, particularly those concerning the possible correlation between aerial spraying in Lincolnshire and the amount of perinatal mortality in that area. That is a matter for considerable concern. No doubt the Ministry will consider the matter and we shall hear more about it. Like other hon. Members, I must compliment the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on producing such a readable, complete and useful report and survey of this rapidly changing field. I can perhaps bask in reflected glory for a moment. One of the members of the Royal Commission is my distinguished constituent Professor Murdoch Mitchison of Edinburgh university.
Many constituents in rural areas must find it odd that, in a week during which the House decided that it had not enough time to debate fully matters concerning rural school buses and the cost of school meals for families in rural areas, we have been able to find a whole day to talk about matters such as sewage sludge and the consumption of processed poultry manure by beef cattle.
I should like to pass on to an area in which the Minister knows I have an interest—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be unfair. The references to school transport related to the debate in Committee, not on the Floor of the Chamber.

Mr. Home Robertson: I accept that. I was trying to make the point that a number of our constituents will find it odd. I am glad that we are holding this debate. It has been useful. It has been a debate of high quality.
The Minister knows my interest. So, too, do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you had the misfortune to be in the Chair at 7 o'clock in the morning of 19 December. If it was not you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it must have been someone else.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I was not signifying dissent.

I was simply saying to myself that it was no misfortune.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am delighted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that. I am referring to an Adjournment debate last month on the subject of pesticides, which ranged over some of the points covered in this debate. I mentioned on that occasion that agriculture was the third most dangerous industry in the United Kingdom, after the construction and mining industries. That point has to be taken into account alongside the efficiency factor to which hon. Members have referred. I also mentioned on that occasion—the Minister referred to the matter in opening the debate—that the agrochemical industry has been one of the spectacular growth industries since the war.
It is true that at the time of the war virtually no arable or grassland acres were being treated regularly with artificial chemicals. Now, literally every arable or intensive grassland acre is treated at least once every year with some kind of chemical. This has been a major growth industry. It has been an enormous help to farming and has helped the industry to increase production. However, this explosion in the use of pesticides and herbicides exposes the rural environment and workers in the farming industry to a number of potentially nasty chemicals.
As the Minister knows, I am concerned about a number of factors largely concerned with the education and information provided to people directly involved in the industry. The main priority of the agrochemical industry is to serve its customers and to sell chemicals. I should like to quote an instance in my experience when that priority has not been in the best interest of the farmer or the environment.
Two years ago I had a field of cauliflowers which were being decimated by cabbage root fly. The advisory literature indicated that the most suitable chemical to deal with the problem was Dursban. I asked the local merchant but was told that it was very expensive and unobtainable until the next day. He suggested that I should use DDT, which was cheaper and available. That was probably good commercial advice, but, as


the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said, DDT is nasty stuff. We should not swill it around too liberally. That is an instance where information is perhaps insufficient, and it shows that some of us are perhaps being inadvertently irresponsible.
I should like to refer to the working of the Government Advisory Committee on Pesticides. This distinguished committee has served the nation well. I am, however, a little worried that it consists of 10 academics and 15 civil servants but no one with practical direct experience in the farming or forestry industries. That shows a gap, although, admittedly, the Royal Commission does not pick up the point. It says that the ACP is a purely voluntary, advisory organisation. It does not exist within a statutory framework, and the Royal Commission advises that it should, perhaps, be made a statutory authority.
I refer to another problem of pesticides—that of farm workers and tractor men who work with these substances. They do not always get the advice, training or facilities that they need when they are exposed to dangerous chemicals. We do not really know enough about the amount of poisoning that occurs. According to the Health and Safety Executive there were only 32 cases of poisoning in 1978. I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg. I am convinced that many more people who may have taken risks out of rashness or ignorance have suffered, or may be suffering from, long-term complaints which may be very difficult to diagnose because we do not know enough about the after-effects of these chemicals.
The Royal Commission refers to the Ministry's excellent advisory booklet entitled "Approved Products for Farmers and Growers". We have established that only 12,000 of these booklets were sold last year. If we assume that 10,000 have actually landed on farms and compare that with the total number of farm holdings in the United Kingdom—about 258,000—it means that, at best, only one farmer out of 25 possesses a copy of this useful handbook.
When replying to my Adjournment debate last month, the Minister said that he thought that the booklet was too technical and that it would not really be much use

to tractor men or farmers. In that case, it should be made more readable and more usable for people who are involved in the industry. The booklet is being printed, so I cannot see the point of compiling such a technical document if it is just to lie around in the Ministry's offices. I strongly endorse the Royal Commisson's advice that the booklet should be available to everyone who must handle pesticides.
I wish to refer briefly to the chemical 2,4,5-T. I talked about this during my Adjournment debate last month. We know that this chemical almost invariaably and inevitably contains very small quantities of a horrible contaminant called dioxin. This is one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. We also know that the Governments of Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy and the United States have suspended its use.
The Minister said when replying to me that
the highest rate that 2,4,5-T is used in this country, mostly in forestry, the amount of dioxin distributed is the equivalent of one grain of sugar spread over a football pitch."—[Official Report, 18 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 594.]
I am glad that the Minister is as confident as that, because his advisory committee is not. It said:
The Advisory Committee is not however satisfied that a reliable analytical method yet exists for the determination of such very low levels of TCDD in formulated products.
Therefore, I do not know how the Minister knows that there is so little. In any event, there is a specific recommendation by the Royal Commission that our authorities should liaise with the American authorities on this issue. The American authorities have for the past several months suspended the use of the chemical.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I merely wish to repeat what I told the hon. Member during his Adjournment debate, namely, that our advisory committee liaises constantly and regularly with the Americans on this subject.

Mr. Home Robertson: In those circumstances, I find it difficult to understand why the Americans have suspended the use of 2,4,5-T and we have not. No doubt the Minister will want to say more about that when he replies to the debate.
I pass on to chapter IV of the report, which refers to nitrates. These pose a real problem. There is a nitrate content in the water supply which poses a danger to health, particularly that of babies and small children. Also, high nitrate levels in water have a serious effect on rivers. A great deal of nitrogen fertiliser, which is distributed liberally on the land, gets washed away in the rain, goes down the drain and runs into rivers. The effect of nitrogen fetriliser is to make green leaves grow, and the green leaves that are present in rivers are weeds. Therefore, rivers such as the Tweed in my constituency have long stretches that are choked with weed growth caused by nitrates in the water. The presence of nitrates in that river is the result of farmers putting the stuff on their land at enormous expense.
The Royal Commission says that the right way to control this is to find ways of purifying the water. I suspect that to a large extent the problem will cure itself. Nitrogen fertiliser is now so expensive that I expect many farmers will find that it is no longer worth their while to spend all that money growing weeds in rivers.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned straw burning. I have spent a lot of time burning straw, and I recommend it to hon. Members who want to get rid of their pent-up, aggressive and destructive instincts. The sight of what one match can do to a field of straw gives one a glimpse of a sense of power for which many Back Benchers, particularly on this side of the House, crave.
The only problem is that having set one's field of straw on fire one must face the irate housewives in neighbouring areas who have hung their washing out to dry downwind of the fire. That is when the real difficulties begin.
The Royal Commission rightly states that more straw is grown as a by-product of cereals than could usefully be used for bedding cattle, manufacturing and packaging and so on. According to the report, in 1976 2 million tonnes of straw was burnt in the fields. Having been in a field in which straw was burning, I can confirm that it produces a considerable amount of heat. I shall not suggest that farm workers should be given concessionary straw to burn in their grates, rather like the miners' concessionary coal, but I suggest that we have here a useful source

of heat on farms. It could usefully be tied in with cereal farming enterprises, because cereal farmers already have the wherewithal to handle bulky bales. At harvest time, while they are handling bales of straw, they consume a lot of diesel oil to heat the grain dryers. I suggest that it might be worth while for people in the Ministry to devise ways of constructing boilers or burners which would burn straw on the farm. That heat could then be put to the useful purpose of drying the grain, thereby saving a great deal of energy.
The most controversial part of the report is chapter VII, on planning and related matters. It suggests that intensive livestock units should be reclassified as industrial units for planning purposes. The National Farmers Union is protesting about this, which seems a little odd, because for a long time it has tried to tell us that farming is no longer a way of life but an industry. The problem with intensive livestock farming is that it produces more slurry and effluent than can safely be spread on the limited acreage of land of these intensive farms. When it is spread, it stinks to high heaven. It pollutes watercourses, and in some circumstances it can poison the land.
We must keep this problem in proportion. I have a number of intensive livestock units in my constituency and I have never had a single complaint on this matter. The Royal Commission has pointed to ways of improving a potentially difficult situation. Existing planning regulations are, to an extent, invidious. If my neighbour in the next village wishes to put in a dormer window or erect a porch, he must get planning permission. If I, a farmer, wish to put up a 40 ft high building covering 5,000 sq ft, I can do so without asking anyone's permission. I can also do more or less what I like inside it.
In another area of Scotland this practice has led to problems. A farmer taking advantage of the planning loopholes built a shed for his intensive pig enterprise. A year later the building had to be shut down because the structure had not been properly planned and a poisonous effluent was percolating through the concrete floor into a watercourse and poisoning fish. If that building had been subject to planning permission in the first place, that would not have occurred.
I understand that Humberside county council has taken some useful initiatives in this context, and I believe that the Government should heed the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Most responsible farmers have nothing to fear from planning controls. Those of us who are not poisoning water supplies, wrecking the soil chemistry or creating excessive smell nuisances have nothing to fear. Those who do cause such problems will be caught sooner or later. It would be much more straightforward if such enterprises were subject to planning controls.
The Royal Commission has produced an excellent report. Its penultimate recommendation is that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be responsible for controlling pollution in agriculture. I look forward to hearing the Minister.

Mr. Paul Marland: I declare an interest as a practising farmer. The Royal Commission makes many recommendations about agriculture and there is no doubt that if they were all implemented it would prove extremely expensive. The report recognises that and recommends action on certain problems in the industry. However, some of the recommendations, if implemented, would raise difficulties for agriculture that do not currently exist.
I wish to deal with two specific problems highlighted by the report. The first concerns smell. This is the reason for some of the most serious complaints against agriculture. The smells are associated with the keeping of livestock on an intensive basis, and if the waste handling system is based on the movement of slurry there is no doubt that such movement gives off considerable smell.
The influx of former town dwellers who have been given permission to build houses close to intensive livestock units gives rise to serious complaint because very often such houses have been put up after the establishment of intensive livestock units. It is rare for traditionally managed livestock units to cause offence to the genuine countryman.
The intensive rearing of livestock and the movement of townspeople into the country will continue, and I am sure that the number of complaints will increase.

Environmental health officers appear increasingly willing, according to the NFU, to issue abatement orders in the case of farm smells, and, unhappily, there is no objective test of the offensiveness or nastiness of the smells.
Invariably in these circumstances farmers are treated arbitrarily. Subsequent legal action usually involves the farmer in considerable expense. The farmer is then involved in further expense in attempting to control the smells. Ultimately, some units may have to pack up entirely.
When the problem arises as a result of new housing development on the edge of intensive livestock units, the Commission has recognised that the principle that the polluter should pay should be amended. It has recognised that the local authority should compensate the farmer for any modifications that have to be made as a result of complaints about offensive smells. I welcome that suggestion.
The most serious problem is that even where a farmer has erected a unit that can incorporate adequate equipment for the control of offensive smells, there is no tried and tested method of control that can be recommended. More research should be done on this problem so that we can effectively control the smells which emanate from these livestock units before legislation is introduced.
The second problem concerns the Commission's proposal to introduce the industrial classification to cover intensive livestock units. That will give rise to new problems for farmers. They will face the possibility of paying rates to local authorities and new planning, pollution and, possibly, factories legislation will then apply to that kind of farming.
The Commission's reasoning is that such units are usually separate from the farm and are not affected by the variables of weather and soil. The assumption that some of these units are built away from farms is correct. However, the majority of them are an integral part of the farm.
The products from the wheat and barley side of the business are often used in the intensive livestock unit as pig feed. The manure from the pig enterprise is spread back on the land to provide nutrition to the following year's crops. With


machinery and manpower being switched between the livestock unit and other farm activities, such units are, I believe, an integral part of many farming enterprises.
In relation to the pollution hazard caused by the rearing of large numbers of animals, the Commission says that control should be exercised by the extension of existing arrangements rather than by radical new methods. The implications of the industrial designation are that all intensive livestock units will require planning permission. Despite what has been said, the majority of these units are already operating under such conditions. Therefore, the introduction of a new designation would have little impact.
The introduction of the industrial designation would, however, bring a liability to pay rates to the local authority and intensive livestock farmers would be heavily penalised. Such a measure would obviously have an unfair and distorting influence on a productive and rapidly developing sector of United Kingdom agriculture.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) concerning the imposition of rates on farms. Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that that would be of enormous benefit to local authorities in rural areas which are at present deprived of substantial revenues from the biggest industry within their boundaries?

Mr. Marland: That may well be, but if rates are an extra cost to be met by farmers it inevitably means that production costs will increase. Farmers may, as a result, have to look for higher returns from the market.
Agriculture is already subject to supervision under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Commission says that it does not wish to add, without very good reason, to the number of official bodies with which farmers have to deal. That is very much in line with the thinking of the Secretary of State for Trade, and I hope that that fact will not go unnoticed by my hon. Friend.
Agriculture has, traditionally, been separated from other industries in receiving Government support and control. That system was instituted initially to ensure the stability of basic food supplies.

Historically, much political unrest has been caused by food shortages. Even today the availability of a steady supply of home-grown food is a vital necessity. The peculiar position of agriculture has existed for many years and the alteration of one component such as planning with its implications for rating can clearly be seen to have far-reaching consequences.
The immunities that agriculture now enjoys are a quid pro quo for the controls that it suffers. To tamper with any one element is to distort the balance that we now enjoy. If the intensive livestock sector were to be treated as industrial, it would in justice require to be freed from the controls that now restrict it. It seems to be appropriate to follow the Commission's suggestion that an extension of the existing system, where necessary, be pursued rather than any radical change.
There is a pollution risk associated with intensive livestock units. Funds require to be devoted to research and development to control smells without delay. Research must be undertaken to find ways in which smells may be controlled. Water pollution takes place from time to time. However, existing agricultural practice is adequate if properly followed. The few instances of significant water pollution indicate the need for careful monitoring and good publicity so that farmers are fully aware of the hazards.
Farmers are deeply concerned with caring for the countryside. We must ensure that we do not put unreasonable demands upon them so that their businesses and the good will that they extend as guardians of the countryside for the rest of the community are in no way impaired.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I feel that I am somewhat on my own when I say that I have no interest to declare. The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) stated that he is a practical farmer who has been involved in farming for several decades. I was interested when he said that he found the report of value in the sense that it enabled him to realise the extent of the changes in farming techniques over the past decade. He explained that he had taken the changes for granted and that the


report brought them into his consciousness as a practical farmer for perhaps the first time. He felt that that impact may be one of the major benefits of the report.
I join with hon. Members on both sides of the House in saying that the report is valuable and timely. It is the report of a group of distinguished citizens who have added to their already considerable reputation. I only hope that the praise that the Minister has lavished on the report will not be a prelude to his Department wielding the axe on the quango. However, I do not fear Ministers even when they come with praise.
We are debating a subject that is potentially explosive. There is a vast amount of emotion within the environmental lobby. That stems from the original Rachel Carson days and scare stories concerning the consequences of the increasing use of chemicals on the land. On the other hand, we have the traditional wish of the agricultural industry, so eloquently advanced by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), to be left alone by the Government. The effect of the message is "Keep out of my sunlight."
It is significant that the report has been greeted so warmly. It has been welcomed by both sides of the argument. That is a considerable tribute to its objectivity and the thoroughness with which the subject has been approached. I recognise that from the Minister's viewpoint he cannot win. The report has been brought to the House and debated at an early stage. That should be welcomed, and indeed, it is. On the other side of the coin, the Minister has been unable or unwilling to indicate his preliminary thinking. He has been reluctant to indicate how his Department is reacting to the recommendations that are contained in the report. I wish that the Minister had given a greater indication of the reaction to the report. I accept that he cannot win the argument if it is put in those terms.
A reasonable starting point is that the continued use of pesticides is necessary for our food supplies and for our standard of living. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) said, the use of pesticides is necessary for not

only our own standard of living but that of Third world countries. There are substantial developmental implications. We cannot turn the clock back even if some might wish to do so.
There are dangers as modern developments in the impact of farming technology challenge traditional assumptions. It is not sufficient to say, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West argued, that traditionally farming has had certain immunities. It is clearly expressed in the report that the nature of farming has changed rapidly as a result of various developments. That forces us to reassess many of our traditional views. That must be so whether it be planning or a series of other topics. There has been rapid change, and that has been especially due to the vastly increased use of agrochemicals and an increasing use of intensive livestock developments.
Farming cannot be left alone, because due consideration must be given to its impact on each one of us, especially on our environment. In many ways a number of the recommendations contained in the report challenge the assumptions that led to the Government's present policies. I say in no partisan spirit that that relates to the role of the Government. Much depends on voluntary regulations, but manifestly they are not sufficient bearing in mind the likelihood of greater intensification. An examination is required of the long-term effects of pesticides, fungicides and herbicides away from commercial pressures. It is clear that the industry has a partisan stance. We require a statutory body to consider the totality of the effect of agrochemicals on our environment.
The Government's reaction to the Porchester inquiry on Exmoor is not a happy precedent for where the line should be drawn between immediate farming pressures and the impact on the longer-term environment. An objective report was prepared by a well-respected figure. It contained recommendations which would have provided a solution to the problem from all environmental points of view. They could not be followed voluntarily, in spite of what the hon. Member for Devon, West said, because of recalcitrant farmers in the area. The result of Government inaction is that the swallowing up of moorland is proceeding apace. That is not a happy precedent


for the Government's reaction to the report. That leads us to reassess overall Government policy, the effect on planning—

Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Exmoor is being swallowed up apace?

Mr. Anderson: No. The moorland which was the precise area of study of the Porchester report is being lost. The Government are making planning grants and ploughing up is taking place. In spite of the reasonable recommendations contained in the Porchester report, the Government, by their inaction, are allowing the erosion of moorland to continue.

Mr. King: Does the hon. Gentleman have any figures to substantiate that theory? Does he know what the figures are?

Mr. Anderson: Surely, it is clear that a loss of moorland is continuing. If the Minister can tell me that a stop has been put to the loss of moorland on Exmoor, I shall be delighted to have the figures.

Mr. King: Many figures have been bandied around. I fancy that the hon. Gentleman has received some of those figures. They have been clarified, and those that have been bandied around have been proved to be wildly inaccurate. I should not like the hon. Gentleman to make such generalisations unless he is in possession of the information.

Mr. Anderson: I certainly recall that the figures I received showed that there was continuing erosion of moorland. If the Minister can provide me with figures to show that the figures given to me were inaccurate, I shall be only too delighted to say that regulation without moorland conservation orders is succeeding. I await the evidence, which I shall look at objectively.
As regards the effect of technological changes on the traditional attitudes towards agriculture, I ask to what extent we can justify planning exemptions where, at a certain stage of development, the agricultural productive process takes on an industrial character. On grounds of principle, I would suggest that such parts of the agriculture industry should be put on a par wih the rest of industry in relation to the impact of various Government

policies. I put that forward as a general proposition.
On the question of finance, there are clear resource implications as a result of the recommendations contained in the report. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) made a point about this. He said that the use of pesticides achieved greater yields and provided cheaper food to the consumer. He went on to say that if we were to impose constraints on our farming community there would be financial implications.
There is a suggestion in the report that greater responsibility should be placed on the staff of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. This comes at a time when the staff of ADAS is being run down, and, therefore, a reassessment of Government policies is needed here.
At the time I was reading the report, I was also reading a report on industrial dereliction entitled "Dealing with Dereliction". It is a report by the Lower Swansea Valley research project team. The overall impression I gain from that report, which gives me cause for anxiety, is that there was a degree of uncertainty in the scientific community about the long-term effects of these chemicals on the food chain and the ecological system as a whole.
That report was sponsored by Nuffield. The scientists were assessing an area of extreme industrial dereliction and were looking at the toxic effects of metals on the soil and means of revegetating the area. When questioned, they said that they needed to conduct further research into those matters because of the effects on the soil and, hence, the food chain, and, indeed, the direct effects on health in the area. This leads to a considerable amount of fear about the effects of nitrates.
In the report the Commission gives a fairly clean bill of health to the effects of nitrates. Yet we know that one significant feature of these agrochemicals is the speed of application of new techniques. One can think of other areas. In the medical field, for example, the speed of application of drugs such as thalidomide throughout the country without adequate research has led to adverse effects on human beings. Perhaps the call for more research should be given greater consideration by the Government.
The hon. Member for Grantham also mentioned the need to accept the cost implications in the sense that if we saddle our own industry with extra costs it will be less competitive with imports, because competitors may not be saddled with the same costs. That is a valid point and argues for a greater degree of cooperation, not only with the American environmental detection agency as regards exchange of research information but also with our major competitors in the EEC, to ensure that our own domestic industry is not put at a disadvantage.
To many outsiders it appears that the Ministry of Agriculture, more than any other sponsoring Ministry, has traditionally been the mouthpiece of the industry: putting it bluntly, that it has been a pressure group for farmers. To some extent this is confirmed in the report, which charges the Ministry by saying that in the past it has been unduly defensive on pollution matters and protective of farming interests.
If the report does nothing else, I hope it will encourage the Government to force the Ministry of Agriculture to reorient its view on environmental questions. It is clear that the initiative for action should be with the Ministry of Agriculture and not with the Department of the Environment, though that Department must have overall responsibility. The Ministry of Agriculture has the greatest impact because of the daily dealings it has with farmers. The Ministry of Agriculture has the respect of farmers, and this will have consequential effects on the organisation of ADAS and the training of its personnel. A point has already been made about the relatively low take-up of the booklet entitled "Approved Products for Farmers and Growers". The Ministry of Agriculture could do much to improve communication with the farming industry.
Intensive farming can be said to be different in kind from traditional farming. Those who argue that intensive farming should be treated differently from other industrial enterprises should have the onus placed on them as regards planning controls and the application of the normal principles applied to industrial processes—for example, making the polluter pay.
The report has been timely and useful. We accept that our agriculture is a

remarkable success story, much of which depends on the efficient use of chemicals. But even the longer-term interests of the industry and farmers, if not of the financial enterprises which now control so much of our land—the accountants have taken over and land values have become the yardstick rather than agricultural criteria—coincide in many ways with those of the environmentalists who argue for greater monitoring and constant reassessment of the effects of technological changes. There are real hazards. It is an area where experts are often unclear about the end effects of the products that are put on the market.
The Commission has rendered a valuable service. If it has given to those of us who are interested laymen, to farmers and to the policymakers in the Government a new consciousness of the revolution over past decades, it will have rendered a signal service.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Unfortunately, I am unable to declare an interest as a farmer, but I was brought up with livestock, running a cattle market. I was brought up with farmers and at times worked on farms. I thought that I knew a little about farming. However, the immense progress over the past few years has left me far behind.
I left Strasbourg at 6 o'clock this morning. I had to get up at about 4 am to catch an aeroplane. I saw the report for the first time a couple of hours ago, and I am afraid that I do not know my way about it. However, it is a fascinating report.
In case I forget, I wish to mention first the conclusion on page 216 about the loss of agricultural land. Quite frankly, the intensification of agricultural practices that might be necessitated by loss of agricultural land to urban development by the year 2000 is not a negligible factor. As a practical man, I believe that the assumption in the report is wrong.
Alice Coleman, who is the foremost agricultural expert in the country and to whom I have listened with great interest on three or four occasions, believes that at least 100,000 acres is being lost to agriculture every year, although some of that might go to forestry. That has been


occurring for 10 years. There is a great loss of agricultural land. That must necessitate increased production from the remaining land. Good land is taken. It is flat, and it is easy to build on green fields. We must face the problem of that major loss in our overcrowded island.
It has been said on several occasions that we cannot depend on nitrogen and other fertilisers. The cost will increase with, for instance, loss of cheap oil. We shall have to rely more on irrigation. We should use irrigation more and more to increase the tonnage per acre on the remaining land. I hope that Ministers will give thought to safeguarding supplies of irrigation water.
I am not in the least opposed to nuclear power. We have to have it. In my constituency a nuclear power station is being considered for the River Ouse. The Anglian water authority believes that over the next 25 years the greatest demand for irrigation water will be in the Fens area. The water needed for a nuclear power station is potable, fresh water which cannot be used again once it has gone through the process. It has to go into tidal waters and out into the Wash. The water required would be sufficent to supply 1 million people a day—more than the total number of inhabitants of the county of Norfolk. It is a misuse of potable and irrigation water.
In the autumn I was engaged in a valuation on a farm. I found there turnips sown on stubble by aerial spray. That is an interesting development. However, there are enormous dangers from high-tension cables. The pilots are brave, capable and intelligent, but they are being limited in their work because of these cables across the Fens.
In my constituency three or four years ago, there was a nasty accident between an RAF pilot—who was the commanding officer of a large aerodrome in Lincolnshire—and a pilot who was crop spraying. It was a one-off accident. Co-operation in an area in which there are many RAF stations must be word perfect.
I recall an exhibition showing how to conceal large buildings in the landscape by colouring. Green is the worst possible colour for fences and the tops of buildings. Usually, it is a hideous bright green, which shows up more obviously than other colours. Gun-metal grey can

be used with great advantage. I hope that there will be planning consultation for large buildings, not merely intensive farming units. In my area we have mainly corn storage buildings, and they also can spoil a beautiful countryside.
I hope that we shall have a great deal more research into the use of straw. The factories that have started up have had problems with haulage costs and the end product is therefore uneconomical. Straw will not be burnt if these factories are viable. I do not like to see straw burnt in the countryside. Clouds of smoke on highways are a hazard. However much care is taken, each year hedges and hedgerow trees are destroyed. Nowadays there are too few men on farms to put out fires once started. If we find other uses for straw, straw burning will die out.
Norfolk is one of the few counties that has increased its population over the past seven or eight years. For health and other reasons, many people have moved to Norfolk from London, Essex and other-built-up areas. I am afraid that everyone expects to be able to walk his dog in the countryside. We are an arable county, and people cannot do so. It is difficult for townsfolk to comprehend that farming is a business. It is an industry and has to be profitable. People cannot wander as they will across farmland in an arable county.
Finally, a form of pollution that I should like to see removed is farming by pension funds—I stress farming, and not land owning. They do not farm at all well in my area. They destroy village life, because of their movable work forces. Big machinery is moved from one farm to another. In short, they do not support village life. They have pushed up prices largely because they want to retain possession in order to sell with vacant possession. It becomes impossible to buy land in competition at £2,000 an acre. The rent on that would be impossible for a young man who was entering into farming. It is a serious matter. There is a dearth of places for young men to farm their own farms.
There are many matters upon which regulations and the introduction of legislation are urged, but, although the report is extremely good, I hope that people will be persuaded rather than that we will find it necessary to introduce more and more regulations, which will need more


and more people and will cost more and more to carry them out. I hope that we shall not be faced with even more Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, from which we have suffered in the past.

Mr. George Foulkes: I enter the debate with great trepidation. First, I am not an expert on agriculture or on pollution. I have been greatly impressed by the contributions from a succession of ex-pig farmers in the House. However, I represent a constituency which is part of one of the finest farming areas in the United Kingdom. I venture to say that Ayrshire potatoes and cattle are as famous as Ayrshire Socialists.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: More productive, too.

Mr. Foulkes: Equally productive, yes.
Farming and mining coexist side by side with only the occasional problem. I should like to highlight one of those problems today. I enter into the argument with trepidation, further, because it is a complex and technical field. When I went through the report I came upon strange words such as eutrophication, methaemoglobinaemia and dribble bar booms—whatever they may be. Therefore, I shall refer to one matter that has been of particular concern to me recently and to my constituents.
The matter is dealt with fleetingly in chapter VI, "The effects of pollution on agriculture". There is a section which emphasises the importance of water supply to farms. Recommendation 67 states:
Pollution of farm water supplies does not constitute a serious problem although continuing care is needed in a number of areas.
I hope that the slight complacency which seems to be contained in the first part of the recommendation is offset by the last part.
Over the past decade, water authorities, with the support of Government legislation and the necessary Government finance to back that up, have done a great deal. In Scotland, a survey in the early part of the decade showed that 8 per cent. of all Scotland's rivers were grossly polluted but that 20 per cent, of those in the industrial central belt of Scotland were polluted. However, by

1975 the pollution in the central belt had been reduced to 5 per cent. There is now a danger of regression and a reversion to the original bad position, first, because of the expenditure limitations of the Government in two areas. I say this as a precautionary note and not in any aggressive way to Conservative Members. I am worried about the effects of capital expenditure cuts on our sewerage system. The system is one of the best in the world, but it has old plant that needs replacing. In order to maintain the system at the present level without any improvement, capital expenditure must be kept to the present level.
I am also worried about the effects of revenue reduction. It will mean that river purification boards will begin to freeze posts in their establishments, vital posts such as inspectors who monitor pollution and enforce our legislation. I know that from my contact with the Clyde river purification board in my constituency. If the posts are not filled, there is a danger that the improving situation will revert to the bad position of the past.
I should like to refer to another danger—the increase in the problem of pollution from a large number of abandoned mine workings. It is particularly true of Scotland, but it applies throughout the United Kingdom. The problem, in the technical jargon, is that of erruginous discharges. Conservative Members will know that that means water that is low in organic matter. It often contains ferric and ferrous salts, sulphates of aluminium, calcium, magnesium and even free sulphuric acid.
Unfortunately, there are a number of bad examples in Ayrshire. The most recent is in my constituency. The River Girvan is one of the worst cases. The Dalquharron colliery at Girvan overflowed last year. The water is now pouring at the rate of thousands of gallons a day into the River Girvan. It is spreading over farmland and polluting fields, which have to be taken out of use. Where it entered the River Girvan it has killed all the fish—fish which were there as a result of careful stocking by the River Girvan Improvement Society, which society consists of representatives of local fishing societies.
The water of the River Girvan deposits an unsightly red ochre along the banks.


When it reached the harbour it successfully killed all the barnacles on the boats and was deposited around the precincts of the harbour. Even more seriously, if that is possible, the water is used by a local factory. if the problem is not dealt with soon, it will put hundreds of jobs in jeopardy. It is an urgent problem. The director of the Clyde River Purification Board said recently to me that the volume of ferric and ferrous salts in the river is 1,300 parts per million. The previous highest level that he had seen was 100 partsper million. Therefore, the river is 13 times more polluted than the most polluted river that he had known of in the past. The director also told me that the aluminium in the river alone was enough to kill all the fish, without the ferric and ferrous salts.
There is a number of possible remedies which I hope that the Government will consider. Mine water can be diverted to the sea or another place where it is less harmful. The mine can be completely sealed off. The acidity can be neutralised, or the acid can be treated to recover the products. The surface water that drains into the mine can be diverted so that it does not enter the mine. I pay tribute to he Scottish Development Agency, which moved quickly and agreed to carry out a study into the possible methods of dealing with the problem. That is yet another instance of the value of the agency.
The implementation of any of the schemes would involve money. It might be expected that the National Coal Board would deal with the problem, but it avers that it is not legally liable. However, I am glad that that will soon be tested, thanks to the Procurator Fiscal, who, with the support of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, is taking the issue to court. We shall have a test case for future use.
Even if the National Coal Board is responsible, it has limited resources. Those resources—and more—are needed for new investment in coal mines. Money must come from somewhere. It should come from a Government source—whether local, national, or European. The European Community should come up with the money. First, it has issued a directive as regards pollution. Secondly, the Front Bench will know that the Prime Minister has been anxious to reduce our

payments to the EEC by the sum of £1,000 million.
If we were to get money from the Community for that sort of pollution, it would help to reduce the deficit. I know that it will be difficult for the Minister to reply at such short notice. However, can he tell me whether the Government will support the approach that I have made, on behalf of my constituents, to the European Commission for assistance with the scheme? I do not expect an immediate reply, but I hope that the Minister will indicate that he will look into the issue. I hope that I shall receive a reply giving his support.
The problem is growing and it needs to be dealt with. The House felt that stronger legislation was generally needed. In 1974 it enacted the Control of Pollution Act. That Act deals with other aspects of pollution that are covered by the report. Parts of that Act require statutory instruments before they can take effect. This Government and—to be fair—the previous Government did not introduce the necessary statutory instruments. I hope that the present financial restrictions will not be used as an excuse for not implementing all parts of that vital Act. It would be a false economy. After a decade of clear improvement in the pollution of all our rivers, stretches of the Thames and of the Clyde have become clear and pleasant. It would be sad if there were any reversion to the polluton of the past decade or, indeed, to the pollution of the past century. It would be unfortunate for farmers and for the whole population.

Mr. Gavin Strang: During the past decade we have seen a growing concern for the environment. That concern has been expressed in Britain and throughout the Western world. We have seen the growth of significant pressure groups and, in some instances, the creation of political parties that are pledged to fight for improvement.
The debate has reflected the concern that exists throughout the country. To some extent increasing concern for the environment reflects a demand for higher standards. People rightly seek an improved quality of life. They seek an improvement in the environment, whether that relates to the urban environment or—within the context of this debate—to


the rural environment. It also stems from growing industrialisaton and the development of industrial technology.
The growing concern for pollution and the environment does not derive from a desire for higher standards in the countryside. It is simply a consequence of the application of science and technology to agriculture. Severalhon. Members have already said that we must see the application of science and technology to farming as a great success story. We have achieved, particularly in Britain, tremendous advances in the production of food, and that has been of benefit to mankind.
We have a large agriculture industry that involves not only farm workers and farmers but fertiliser manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, machine manufacturers, research workers and all the other elements that make up an agriculture industry. Those workers have a record of which this country can be proud.
With the advance of those techniques, agriculture has intensified. That has created a number of pollution problems. Hon. Members have speculated whether the trend will continue. Perhaps massive intensification in the application of fertilisers and pesticides will inevitably continue. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) was right in saying that in the short term it appears that that will continue. It may well be that we are moving towards a turning point, especially in relation to the sharply increasing costs of energy inputs.
It is interesting to note that there have been a couple of reports comparing the dairy sector in Britain with that of Ireland and, more recently, comparing our dairy sector with that of France. The most recent report, which took a substantial sample of farms in Britain and France, showed that whereas our intensity of production was much greater, and our output per cow was much greater, the profitability of dairy farming was not greater. That stemmed from the heavy use of costly inputs of feed, buildings and capital equipment.
It may be that we are moving towards a position in British agriculture, especially with the sharply rising costs that derive from the finite nature of fossil fuels, at which the rate of intensification will slow down.
Some hon. Members referred to the comment in the report that the loss of agricultural land would have a negligible effect on the rate of intensification. There has been some misunderstanding of that observation. The report is not saying that the rate of loss of agricultural land is unimportant, as was implied by one hon. Member, but not by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who quoted the report accurately.
There has been a suggestion that the Royal Commission argued that we should not be concerned about the loss of agricultural land. That was not the argument. It suggested that, when considering all the factors that have been driving towards increased intensification, the loss of agricultural land is not likely to be one of the most important issues. That is undoubtedly a correct conclusion.
The question of the loss of agricultural land is raised often in the House. I agree that we should be concerned about the rate of loss. I am anxious to ensure that everything is done, in terms of planning, to minimise that loss.
When hon. Members raise the issue, I think of many of my constituents who live in cramped housing conditions, in tenements or in relatively modern council blocks, who would love to have a house with a garden. Inevitably, the improvement in living and housing standards that is badly needed, and that I believe will continue to take place in Britain, must mean that individual households occupy more land.
We should consider that as a challenge and not as something that we should fight. We should ensure also that in so far as it is practicable the development should take place on the poorer agricultural land rather than the best agricultural land.
I wish to put a technical question to the Minister, although I understand that he may not be in a position to answer it when he replies. I was intrigued by the observation in the report that whereas in Scotland there is a small proportion of grade 1 and grade 2 land, the proportion of the high-quality agricultural land that had been lost for urban development was staggeringly higher in England. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider that matter. The Royal Commission did not take it any further. It is a matter that ought to be considered,


and some attempt should be made to explain why it is the position in Scotland.
I move on more generally to the problems of agricultural pollution that are highlighted in the report. It is fair to put these problems under two broad headings. There are, first, the problems that arise from the application of manmade substances in agriculture. Secondly, there are the problems that arise from the intensification of crop and livestock husbandry practices. It is the first category—the application of man-made substances, whether they be fertilisers or pesticides—that causes the greatest concern.
It is fair to say that the report was most concerned with pesticides. It must be said—I do not think that anyone has disputed it—that the industry's record and the record of the control bodies—the committees appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture—and our overall arrangements for the control of agricultural chemicals are good. I do not think that anyone would claim—certainly the report does not do so—that these arrangements have served us badly. That is not to say that they cannot be improved.
The Royal Commission recommends a number of improvements, with most of which I agree. I shall not go through them all in detail. That is not necessary, and time does not allow for it. I think it is fair to say that most of the recommendations have found broad acceptance already—for example, by the Agrochemicals Industry Association.
The proposal that we merge the pesticides safety precautions scheme with the agricultural chemicals approval scheme is sensible. It may take time to achieve, but I assume that the Ministry will accept it in due course. The proposition that it be put on a statutory footing—provided that we are not talking about a massive input of new detailed regulations and bureaucracy—is one that I also think commends itself to most people.
The suggestion that we need more information on the level of application of various agricultural chemicals in different parts of the country is acceptable, although it will cost money to collect the data.
Therefore, I think that the general recommendations are not very controversial. However, the Royal Commis-

sion was right to focus attention on the importance of improved training and improved understanding of the way in which to apply these chemicals. My own view is that the suggestion that there should be a commercial pesticides operator's licence and that we should think in terms of creating a skilled group of people who will be trained and recognised as such in this area deserves serious consideration.
I touch on two specific matters that were dealt with at some length in the report. The first is the controversial question of 2,4,5-T, which was raised in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who also raised it in a very successful Adjournment debate towards the end of last year. I do not think that 2,4,5-T is an easy issue. I found it a difficult issue when I was in government.
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, we asked the independent committee under Professor Kilpatrick to look at the whole question of 2,4,5-T because of the evidence that had become available and that had led to considerable concern. A full report was produced, and I accepted it. It is fair to say that the present Government continued the investigation. The report said that the committee would look at the new data that had come from Oregon claiming that there was a correlation between the application of the chemical and, in effect, the associated impurity and the proportion of miscarriages. The committee has looked at that data and has concluded, first, that there is not a correlation and, secondly, that if their were a correlation it would not necessarily mean that there were cause and effect.
I am afraid that there has been more evidence and there has been growing concern. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary himself would acknowledge that we are not just talking about groups that have pressed this in a rather sensational way, picking up, for example, the Vietnam situation, which has no parallel with the chemical that is used in this country. Undoubtedly, there has been growing concern and there is some evidence—I am not saying that it is justified, in the sense that the evidence is valid—


that has led trade unionists, and particularly workers who have to deal with these substances, to become very concerned.
I think the fact that the Trades Union Congress has now taken up this matter—I had the privilege of speaking to one of the members of the committee earlier this week—is significant. I do not advocate a ban on the use of 2,4,5-T, but I believe that the concern has reached such a level, particularly in relation to some of the instances that have not been examined, that the Government would be wise to ask the independent advisory committee to look again at the question, and particularly at the evidence that is causing concern in the trade union movement in relation to the potentially harmful effects of the use of this chemical.
Secondly, I come to the question of aerial spraying. I remember, when I was in the Ministry, receiving some correspondence on this that led me to believe that there was quite a bit to be desired in many respects in relation to the right of redress and the difficulties which an injured party had in securing justice in this area. A number of important recommendations in this area are made in the report. I believe they are very sound and practical. I do not think there can be any question but that this is a real problem. The Beekeepers' Association has been concerned about it for a long time. Many people raised this issue, certainly in correspondence, through their Member of Parliament when I was in the Ministry of Agriculture.
The report recommends that there should be an advance warning scheme, that this should be mandatory and, perhaps more crucial, that, where it is impracticable to warn the occupiers of adjacent land because of their numbers, aerial spraying should simply not be used. It recommends the use of a ground marker—that is, an individual who has to be on the ground when the spraying is taking place, who knows what is being sprayed and who is able to inform anyone who inquires what area of ground is being sprayed and what it is being sprayed with.

Mr. Hawkins: I wonder whether it really is practicable to give mandatory warning to all the people the report recommends, and how the hon. Gentleman

feels about it. Does he not feel that this would almost prevent aerial spraying from being carried out?
Secondly, does, in fact, "markers on the ground" mean people? I have always thought that it meant flags put out on the ground, which is done in my part of the world.

Mr. Strang: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find, if he reads this section of the report, that the term "ground marker" is used to refer to an individual.
I think that the level of concern is justified. It really is quite outrageous that people should be affected in the way they have been in the past—people in the countryside suddenly being subjected to a torrent of the spray. That is quite unacceptable. There are risks involved. No one is suggesting that this practice should be banned, but I think that the controls must be made much more effective. I accept that this will mean that there will be less aerial spraying than would otherwise be the case.
I turn to the other area of man-made substances, to which the Royal Commission devoted a chapter in its report. I refer, of course, to the use of fertilisers, particularly nitrogenous fertilisers. I think it is fair to say that the Commission's findings are encouraging, in that it feels that some of the concerns that have been expressed are not justified. But the most important conclusion in relation to fertilisers—this comes out again and again in the list of recommendations—concerns the need for more information and research. The report uses the words "in vestigate", "study" and "research" all in relation to the use of nitrogen fertilisers, the effect of the leakage of nitrogen into the soil and especially the whole question of the level of nitrates in drinking water.
In passing, it is interesting that the Fertiliser Manufacturers Federation, the National Farmers Union and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are all agreed that the rate of application of fertilisers will decline. In fact, I believe that it will be some time before that happens. It is rather ironic that in the very week of this debate—on 28 January—the Ministry issued advice to growers in which it said that
nitrogen is a key factor in achieving high yields of cereals.


It went on to discuss the issue. The whole point of its press release is to advocate increases in the level of nitrogen application to certain crops. Admittedly, in the case of winter wheat it is a fairly small increase, but it is interesting that such a press statement is issued at a time when the Ministry is predicting that we shall use less fertiliser and when there has been a tendency in the debate to talk in those terms. I do not criticise the Ministry for that. On the contrary, it is a reflection of the research and evidence that is available.
The press statement brings out a point that is worth making about some things that the Royal Commission said with regard to the need to apply less agricultural chemicals. The fact is that the farmer makes a commercial judgment. If he is a good farmer, he will apply the chemical or fertiliser up to a level that maximises his net returns. That is an approach which leads to maximum productivity and efficiency.
Another problem area arises out of the intensification of livestock and crop husbandry practices. First, there is the question of straw burning, which was raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), but I believe that he also touched on this subject. I feel, just as I do about aerial spraying, that this is an issue over which there is legitimate ground for concern.
I was brought up in Perthshire, where there is continuous cereal growing and burning of straw. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian comes from East Lothian, where there is even more continuous cereal growing and burning of straw. But, frankly, the scale of the problem in those areas is as nothing compared with the problem that exists in areas such as Suffolk, East Anglia and perhaps even Lincolnshire.
My impression is that there is a great deal of unrest in those areas among country dwellers. Indeed, a constituent of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) approached me this week because she knew that the matter would be raised in debate. She sent me a useful collection of press cuttings and correspondence outlining the

scale of the concern about this issue, for example, in the county of Suffolk.
It is true that we have the report of the Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture in England and Wales—incidentally, one of the quangos that the Government have abolished. But that report was published back in 1973. We are all agreed that we want to see less straw burnt and more of it used, either as feed for livestock or as a source of energy. Anything that the Government can do to encourage that is to be welcomed. Research and work continue on this subject. Indeed, the hon. Member for Grantham referred to the use of urea and other compounds to make this a better feedstuff for livestock.
However, in many areas the code has not been effective. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West nod his head. There are areas of the country in which there is intensive cereal growing where people are subjected to conditions that are quite intolerable. I hope that the Government will look again at the question of straw burning.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to clarify one point. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should look again at the matter. Is he suggesting new controls, or prohibition?

Mr. Strang: There are a number of options open. A radical option would be to give local authorities—the regional councils in Scotland and their equivalent in England—powers to ban straw burning. That option would be radical and extreme, and I do not advocate it. However, the code of practice must be looked at again.
The National Farmers Union made a bold and brave attempt, and, undoubtedly, that has led to some improvement. However, there are still a number of farmers who are not following that code of practice sufficiently. I am not suggesting that there is an easy solution or that there should be an outright ban, but the level of concern in many parts of the country is such that it is not sufficient to say that there should be a code of practice, that the matter should be left there, and that we should wash our hands of it.
I turn now to the question of intensive livestock production. Smell and slurry constitute problems. I strongly commend the suggestion that more research work


should be carried out and that greater attention should be paid to the problems of smell and to the disposal of slurry when grant applications are made. I believe that Labour Members are right to accept the recommendation that there should now be some planning control of intensive livestock units. I accept that there has to be a definition. Incidentally, I am not suggesting that they should pay rates. It would not be sensible if one section of agriculture paid rates and another section did not. Parliament has the power to change the legislation in order to preserve the status quo on rates and to require planning permission when this type of development takes place.
I have not had time to deal with all the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) raised the problems which he faces in his constituency, which come under the general heading of pollution in agriculture. Undoubtedly that is a problem in some areas, and the Government have always accepted it.
The point that comes through in the report time and time again is the need for more research. Much research is being carried out at present. It may be difficult to get an undertaking from the Government that they will spend more on research in this area, but the very minimum that we are entitled to expect is that there will be no cutback on the research which the committee deems to be desirable. I hope that some attempt will be made in the context of Government policy—a policy to which I am opposed, because I believe that the cutbacks in education and research are against the national interest—to respond to the many recommendations calling for more information and more research in these important areas. They are areas of national concern, which will be of greater concern to people in the future. The Government will be doing a great disservice if that is not reflected in expenditure on these facilities.
I support the recommendation that the Ministry of Agriculture must play a more central role in agricultural evolution. We are served with an excellent Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. From reading the report of the debate in the other place, I had the impression that the Minister in his reply was a wee bit un-

easy that the ADAS officers would have to police this matter and that it would affect their relationship with farmers. I can see that point of view, but I believe that they are very often the best people to get to grips with this issue and to ensure that it becomes more central to the application of Government policy in agriculture, in relation to grant aid or in other areas.
The debate has been striking because of the unanimous acceptance that we are dealing with an important subject and with a report which strikes the right balance. We are talking here about the right balance between the cost of pollution to the community and the benefits arising from the application to agriculture of relatively new techniques.
Sir Hans Kornberg and the members of the Commission have done Parliament and the nation a service. We should not lose sight of the fact that these eminent people, who have very busy lives to lead, voluntarily gave up their time in order to serve the nation in this way. They have produced a realistic report. No one could say that it advocates extremist conservation or environmental policies. Almost all the recommendations are practical. Parliament has seen fit, and rightly so, to debate the report within a few months of its publication—first in the other place and then in the House of Commons.
But what really counts is the Government's response to the report. Although we cannot expect all the recommendations to be implemented this year or next, I hope that there will be a positive response. There are areas, such as aerial spraying and straw burning—to mention just two—in regard to which we do not want to go another season with nothing being done.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to be positive and to give Parliament, the Commission and the nation an indication that the Government intend on this occasion to take effective action. We all know that there are many Royal Commission reports with which we agree but which are never implemented. On this occasion, the nature of the issues is such that we hope that the Government will give priority to the implementation of many of the very valuable recommendations of the report.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): My right hon. Friend has already paid tribute to the quality of the Royal Commission's report and the valuable work to which it bears witness. I thoroughly endorse that and add my gratitude—and that of my Department—to his for the work of its members and secretariat. The high standard set by the report has been reflected in the debate that we have just heard.
As my right hon. Friend said, the Government are still digesting the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, so it is particularly timely to take the wisdom of the House on them. Valuable contributions have been made by hon. Members, and these will be of great help to us in arriving at our priorities in relation to the various courses proposed. However, the House will appreciate that, as has been said, we have to take account of the resource implications of the proposals. We cannot do everything at once and we have to decide on the order of priority, having regard to the work which is already in train and possible ways of reorganising our efforts, particularly on research, to take account of changing circumstances and the areas singled out by the Royal Commission for special attention. In this latter connection I am bound to say that in some respects the Royal Commission has not given us full credit for work which is already in progress.
Hon. Members have made a number of important points and I shall seek to deal with as many as time allows, but before that I should like to make some general comments. The first relates to the reception that has been accorded to the report by interested parties, including those who gave evidence. Some people feared that the Royal Commission would be blinded by environmental matters, to the exclusion of proper consideration of the needs and the environmental contribution of agriculture. I am happy to say that these fears were not realised.
Both the National Farmers Union and the British Agrochemicals Association have remarked on the balanced, unbiased and objective approach of the report. It is abundantly clear that the Commission

displayed a proper and wholly welcome sense of realism regarding the basic condition required to enable agriculture—our largest single industry—to continue to be efficient and competitive.
However, I would not go so far as to say that all the Royal Commission's recommendations were greeted with enthusiasm by the industry and its kindred industries. Equally, however, there is certainly no feeling abroad that the very real and legitimate interests of the industry have been disregarded or minimised. Such a feeling would be hard to justify in the light of the impartiality and balance that are the hallmarks of the report.
It is inevitable that one of the major areas of interest and concern to the Royal Commission would be pesticides. This is wholly proper in view of the importance of these to the prosperity of agriculture, in which, of course, I include horticulture, and the consequences of their use both to mankind and to the environment. I am happy, however, that the Royal Commission has paid a richly deserved tribute to our safety record in this respect, which owes much to the pesticides safety precautions scheme and to the work of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides over the last 20 years. presently under the distinguished chairmanship of Professor Kilpatrick. A number of hon. Members have echoed those views.
The pesticides safety precautions scheme is a non-statutory but none the less formal agreement between the Government and the industry, covering all pesticides for use in agriculture and food storage and related areas. Under the scheme, pesticides are cleared for safety to human beings, animals, wildlife and the environment generally before being marketed in the United Kingdom. In addition to the clearance of pesticides under the pesticides safety precautions scheme, there is a voluntary scheme—the agricultural chemicals approvals scheme—designed to help users select products of known performance to deal with particular pest control problems. Products cannot be considered under this scheme unless they have first been cleared through the pesticides safety precautions scheme.
Mr. Anderson: Has the Minister any comment to make on the subsequent


monitoring of these pesticides? I notice that the British Agrochemicals Association was sceptical about the yellow card-type scheme. What proposals, if any, have the Government for monitoring the effects of these chemicals on the land?

Mr. Wiggin: Any evidence that is available is immediately fed back by the farmers concerned, through my Department, and also by the manufacturers. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is prepared, at any time, to look again at a chemical that has come under suspicion. One particular chemical, for example, has been looked at no fewer than eight times. This monitoring process is continual. Vigilance is the watchword. It would seem, happily, that so far the advisory committee has been successful.
It is important to put on record the laborious way in which both the Government and the chemical industry seek to see that the public are not harmed. To minimise the risk of products finding their way on to the market without first being cleared under the pesticides safety precautions scheme, another scheme, the British agrochemicals supply industry scheme, has been introduced. Under this arrangement, agricultural merchants undertake to sell only pesticides cleared through the pesticides safety precautions scheme. Members of the British Agrochemicals Association, the BAA, representing the manufacturers of about 95 per cent. of the active ingredients of pesticides marketed in Britain, have in turn undertaken to supply only to members of BASIS.
The Royal Commission made three broad recommendations about the operation of these schemes. The first of these recommendations, that the pesticides safety precautions scheme should be combined with the agricultural chemicals approvals scheme, is acceptable to us. Indeed, discussion with the agricultural and pesticides industries were in hand on a proposal to amalgamate the safety and efficacy schemes before the Royal Commission recommended this. But there are a number of practical problems to overcome. For example, the agricultural chemicals approval scheme at present covers only crop protection products, and to develop efficacy regimes for those now outside would clearly take some time.
The second of the Royal Commission's recommendations concerning the status of pesticide control schemes will require further consideration. Although the report recommends that a combined scheme should be given statutory recognition, the Royal Commission proposes that the present system should continue undisturbed so long as it continues to operate successfully. Nevertheless, it wishes Ministers to have reserve powers to control pesticides.
The third point concerns the booklet "Approved Products for Farmers and Growers", which has been mentioned several times in the debate. I said previously, and I repeat tonight, that while I understand the wish that this booklet should be distributed free of charge to farmers, I implore hon. Members to have a look at the booklet and ask themselves whether that type of informative leaflet will be of any great use. It used to be free, and I remember having a copy, but I never had the time to look at it. Usually one seeks instructions on chemicals from the information placed on the drum or container, or from the local merchant who will advise one on the best ways of using various chemicals. It would cost perhaps £150,000 a year to distribute the leaflet free, and that may well be a case of throwing good money away without increasing safety. However, we are prepared to consider the views of hon. Members and interested organisations on this matter.
As both the hon. Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) mentioned 2,4,5-T, I repeat what I said in the debate last month about America's advisory committee, which said:
After extensive review of the data we find no evidence of an immediate or substantial hazard to human health or to the environment associated with the use of 2,4,5-T or Sorbex on rice, rangeland, orchards, sugar cane and the non-crop uses specified in the decision documents.
I gave the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian that information last month and the position remains the same. That is the view of the Americans.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh. East mentioned the question of the TUC's interest in this chemical. My right hon. Friend the Minister meets the secretary-general of the National Union of Agricul-


tural Workers, and only the other day he mentioned this matter to him. The Minister said then that if there was new evidence at all that this chemical had proved dangerous to any member of that union or anyone else, the Government would take that evidence to the advisory committee. Sadly, since that meeting there has been no evidence forthcoming from the union except that it is seeking information from abroad and that this will take some time. As it is composed of responsible people, I hope that the TUC's committee on this matter will be sensible and play fair, because we are perfectly prepared to accept evidence if there is any. However, it is no good after eight or nine looks at this to tell the advisory committee to look at it again when there is no evidence to work on. The worldwide opinion of those in the know is that we are worrying unnecessarily. The evidence that has come forward has all been examined and found wanting.
The question of DDT was raised. We all accept that this has very serious effects. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides has been kept aware of the possible problems of advising a continued and very limited use of DDT products. Its members from the Nature Conservancy Council and the National Environmental Research Council have kept the committee well informed on these matters. Present policy is to phase out DDT as soon as adequate alternatives become available. An EEC directive prohibiting the use of certain organic chlorine insecticides has the Government's full support. Monitoring activities and the results of bird population studies and studies of pesticide residues occurring in birds and/or their eggs are regularly brought to the attention of the advisory committee. I assure hon. Members that this matter will continue to receive close attention.
I have already mentioned that the Royal Commission did not give full credit for work already in progress. For example, it made a number of recommendations on pesticide research. Many hon. Members have mentioned this. The Royal Commission called for more work on strategies to delay the onset of resistance, research on the monitoring of pest and disease incidence, new techniques of pesticide application and a strong commitment to further research into integrated pest control. We shall review the commitment of Government resources to

this type of work. As an indication of our present concern, entomologists and plant pathologists in my Department are spending 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of their time on these areas of work, including a substantial amount of time on the development of integrated pest management—a concept which goes further than integrated pest control in the consideration of safeguards for the environment.
Similarly, we are fully seized of the dangers of misuse and are considering what can be done to minimise it. It is not easy to legislate against misuse. The existing laws in this area are difficult to enforce and this will be true also of any bans which one might be tempted to impose on products which tended to be misused.
There is also the problem that we would, in effect, be throwing the baby out with the bath water, since legitimate uses as well as misuses would be ruled out by a ban. I am convinced that the best answer to misuse and overuse of all kinds is the development of a more professional attitude to the use of pesticides as recommended by the Royal Commission.
The proper training of those involved in the storage, sale and use of pesticides is the key, and the British agrochemical supply industry scheme is a major contributor in this area.
Hon. Members have mentioned the problem of nitrates and I understand—though I cannot go into the matter at length—that it is just as much the presence of phosphates as of nitrates that causes the harmful by-product in the water. Whether or not this problem would be affected by any substantial change in fertiliser usage is not clear, but of course we shall look at this matter. Nitrates are not as widely to blame as they are sometimes held to be.
Farm wastes were the third major area examined by the Royal Commission in relation to the effects of agriculture on the environment. As my right hon. Friend has said, a number of recommendations were made. These were related to intensive livestock units and to what one may call good housekeeping practices in the disposal of waste in the form of excreta and of pesticides wastes.
This is a question which runs naturally into the planning issues considered by the Royal Commission, which made a very


helpful analysis of the problems of pollution arising from the operation of intensive livestock units. We shall need to consider very carefully the recommendation that these problems might be eased by bringing all intensive units under full planning control and that there should be controls over their operation.
I do not want to get involved in arguments for and against at this stage. I have listened with care to the views put forward, and it is only right that I should draw the attention of the House to the problems that might be raised.
One major problem is that of definition. I have previously referred to the so-called intensive units advisedly, since it is far easier to use such a term than to define it. Definitions used for other purposes would extend control unnecessarily. For example, the farm animals welfare code refers to a unit
depending on the operation of automatic feeding equipment.
Such a unit would be neither large nor intensive.
It would be foolish to think that the problems have been caused by the siting of some livestock units. It is a fact that a number of large units have been developed subject to full planning permission. Suggestions have been made to the effect that there are other more suitable means than the planning legislation for dealing with pollution problems caused by such units. Perhaps it could be some form of anti-pollution legislation tailored for the job. We shall explore this, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned disease risks from intensive units. It is true there are some risks, but my departmental advice is that following storage, spreading and a subsequent interval before allowing livestock on to the land the risks are minimal. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) mentioned bio-fermentation—

Mr. Hawkins: I said that I knew that a large outbreak of fowl pest occurred from some of the buildings. I do not think that the risk is minimal, and I hope that this point is kept under review.

Mr. Wiggin: I think that my hon. Friend well understands the circumstances in which bacteria will survive. What I have said is that if the material is dried

and the sun gets at it, it will be sterilised. Quite clearly, if one moves waste from a diseased animal house there is a risk that it will be passed on. I merely made the point that there are long-standing agricultural processes and usages that minimise that risk, but it exists.
Bio-fermentation was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West. My Department's ADAS has been active in developing the technique. There are still some reservations about the possible disease risks that are associated with feeding the products to livestock.
The Commission rightly turned its attention to agriculture odours. It is an emotive subject, and that is not surprising. I have great sympathy with those who live close to intensive livestock units. My sympathy does not end there. There is a large mushroom farm in my constituency which at certain times of the year causes considerable troubles because of the smell that it produces.
The Commission observed that special difficulties are caused when existing livestock units are overtaken by urban development. It is only in a minority of instances that problems arise. The majority of so-called intensive units are run without causing serious inconvenience to neighbours.
The Commission drew attention to the limited use of treatment systems for farm animal waste to control odour. Cost is an important limiting factor. However, research continues at various establishments to seek a solution to the problem.
Aerial spraying has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Holland with Boston (Mr Body) and for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). The Royal Commission made a number of recommendations designed to improve the precautions taken during aerial spraying.
The pilots require substantial experience and professionalism of a degree that is as great as that which applies to any in the aviation world. They are licensed and strictly supervised by the Civil Aviation Authority. The Air Registration Board seeks to ensure that the aircraft comply with all the regulations. They are extremely stringently bound by licensing and regulations. We shall take


up with the CAA the Royal Commission's recommendations.
There is a requirement to give warnings to occupiers of adjacent property as far as that is practicable. The problem with aerial spraying is that the weather changes. When there is a good spell, the contractors wish to move on and to work quickly. There may be a change in the programme or in the requirements. It is very much an instant matter.
When an aeroplane flies low and is seen to be producing a chemical, it is understandable that great fears are aroused in the minds of those who see it and experience it. Anyone who has stood underneath an aircraft that is crop spraying will know what I mean.
Any complaints that are made about aerial spraying are immediately followed up by the CAA. It is of interest that, on average, only one complaint per licensed aircraft has been made in recent years. If there are any breaches of the regulations, warnings to and prosecutions of the pilots or companies follow. I should be reluctant to see the use of such an extremely efficient method of distributing chemicals and fertilisers precluded because of the odd mistake. It is an issue that we shall consider with the CAA.
Straw burning has been referred to by a number of hon. Members. I know that it arouses great concern. Anyone who has witnessed a field of dry straw burning in any sort of wind will realise that it is a fairly awe-inspiring sight. It is noisy and it is hot. There is a great deal of smoke. Everybody says "My goodness, what a waste". However, it is a highly beneficial process for the farmer. Lord Stanley of Alderley said in another place that he reckoned that straw burning was worth as much as £35 an acre to him. He will have assessed the value of the burning operation and set that against the money that he could obtain for his straw. He is a farmer.
No one likes waste, but in straw burning there is an economic factor. If the straw is worth more than the benefit obtained from burning, farmers will sell the straw. I hate the thought of licensing or prohibiting straw burning. Unlike some hon. Members, I observed during the summer of 1979 an almost universal compliance with the code of the National Farmers Union. If the hon. Member for

Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has substantive figures that demonstrate that many farmers have not complied with the code, the NFU will be interested, as will my Department.

Mr. Stephen Ross: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to 1976, he will remember the problems that we had. The public were extremely worried. Had it not been for the quick action of the fire brigade, we should have lost an important area of the Isle of Wight. That is why local authorities are concerned, and the hon. Gentleman should not brush that concern aside.

Mr. Wiggin: I understand that the process can be dangerous, and that is why the code exists. I should be interested to know whether in that case the code had been complied with. I understand the danger. I have had accidents with straw burning on my farm. The code is stringent and time consuming to operate, and there is, therefore, a temptation to avoid it. If there were legislation, I wonder whether the farmer would be any more inclined to do what he had to do. To prohibit burning of material in the countryside would be an enormous and difficult step. However, we have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, and we shall consider the matter.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of the quality of river water. Consents are being reviewed in the light of the discharges made. There is no question, however, of lowering the standards of river waters.
Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 strengthens the powers to control discharges to sea and land. However, expenditure considerations mean that we cannot move as quickly as we should like towards full implementation of the provisions of the Act.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) mentioned departmental responsibility, and that is perhaps important in relation to the Government's attitude. There is an inherent conflict between the interests of environmentalists and farmers. It is the Government's duty, in our Department, and that of my right hon. Friend to see that the conflict is minimised, in the interests of the environment and of agricultural production.


However, I do not accept the Royal Commission's assumption that my Department has been unduly defensive. We have considered, and will further consider, departmental responsibility in those areas.
Both my right hon. Friends seek to try to minimise conflicts of interest between agriculture and the environment and constantly meet to discuss the areas in which there might be conflict. We accept that there is room for general oversight of environmental matters by the Department of the Environment and for consideration of an increased role for my Department in relation to specific problems.
It is accepted in principle that ADAS should have a greater involvement in the pollution aspects of agricultural practices. In considering that, we must have regard not only to the functions and responsibilities of the various pollution control authorities but to the special relationship between the agricultural advisory services and the farming community.
The right hon. Member for Widnes said that the man from Marsham Street was less likely to be welcome than the man from MAFF. That is so. I do not wish to argue with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, but in a strange way my Department is close to its customers. The farming community trusts the professional views that my officers hold. They have an understanding of the interests of agriculture as well as of the greater interests of the whole nation in environmental matters. That is a way of dealing with the problem.
The question of land on the urban fringes is too great for me to deal with tonight. It is not wholly relevant to the report. Dr. Coleman has discussed these problems with me, and they are also a matter for my right hon. Friend in the

Department of the Environment. We are conscious of the difficulties.
The trend to "horsyculture", as it has been called, and the "urban fringe", as Alice Coleman calls it, are serious problems which have rightly been drawn to the attention of planning authorities as well as the Ministry of Agriculture.
Despite the changes that have taken place in British agriculture in recent years, the fact remains that the sector of the population most likely to be concerned about the continued balance and well-being of the environment is the farmer himself. To him the countryside is not just a place where he spends his all-too-rare moments of leisure time it is where helives and on which his livelihood depends. Nevertheless, it would be foolish to attempt to deny that there are some areas where there are conflicts between agricultural and environmental interests. This debate and the report have brought some of them out. It is a question that is well to the forefront of the Government's preoccupations, as I hope I have demonstrated.
It is too early to give the Government's response to the report, but the report and the debate are very welcome, providing, as they do, a new foundation for the development of policies on agriculture and pollution. We have done a good deal to square the circle of reconciling the needs of modern life with the preservation of the quality of that life. In these terms, Her Majesty's Government welcome the seventh report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution and urge the House to take note of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution relating to Agriculture and Pollution. (Cmnd. 7644.)

LIAISON COMMITTEE

The following motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas):

That—
(i) a select committee shall be appointed, to be called the Liaison Committee—
(a) to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees, and
(b) to give such advice relating to the work of select committees as may be sought by the House of Commons Commission;
(ii) the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report from time to time;
(iii) unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament;
(iv) the committee may consist of more than fifteen Members;
(v) this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. St. John-Stevas): In moving the first of the two motions in my name, perhaps it would be convenient for me to do so in the amended form of which you are aware Mr. Deputy Speaker—that is to say, by inserting at the end of paragraph (iv) the words:
of whom six shall be the quorum.

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the sort of thing that starts like a storm in a teacup and raises great constitutional issues. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that normally when notice of a motion has been given on the Order Paper it is not possible to change the terms of that motion.
I am informed that Mr. Speaker has been advised that this particular amended motion should be selected. I am, therefore, in the difficulty—as my contention is to be that Mr. Speaker has been misadvised—that you, as Deputy Speaker, or your successor in the Chair, are not in a position, as it were, to alter Mr. Speaker's mind. May I, therefore, suggest that Mr. Speaker should be summoned so that this matter can be considered?
I am not on the point of order at this stage. It is my contention that Mr. Speaker has been misadvised on the precedents in order to protect a source of error, and it would be better if he were here to determine whether that is so or not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): If Mr. Speaker has been misadvised, so have I. I should like the hon. Gentleman to address his mind to "Erskine May", which I presume he has already done. Page 367 refers to:
Change of term of notice of motion.
It says:
A modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice.

Mr. English: It goes on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It goes on, but I intend to deal with just that for the moment. I think that Mr. Speaker and I take the view that the words that have been added to the motion do not materially alter the motion as such. I will—

Mr. English: Mr. English rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The wording of that clearly indicates that it is within the right of the occupant of the Chair to make a ruling and that it is not for the House to decide on that matter, because "Erskine May" goes on to say:
If a motion is proposed, which differs materially from the terms of the notice, it can only be made with the consent of the House, or by a new notice.
That clearly indicates that it is for Mr. Speaker or the occupant of the Chair to make a decision.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring something to my notice which changes that, I shall be glad to hear it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that ruling was held to in a previous precedent. On 30 July 1963, in an Adjournment debate, a time was put into the date after the date of the Adjournment. That was accepted on the same principle. Mr. Speaker and myself say that this has not materially altered the motion. Therefore, it is a matter for the discretion of the occupant of the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to address me in an effort to show that that is wrong, I am


prepared to listen to a point of order on it. However, I do not wish to go back to the seventeenth century; we have more recent precedents.

Mr. English: I agree entirely with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, my charge with respect, is that Mr. Speaker and, apparently, yourself have been misadvised. In effect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have proved my point by what you have just said. The full statement on the fourth paragraph of page 367 of the latest edition of "Erskine May", which is headed "Change of terms of notice of motion", proceeds:
A modification of a notice of motion standing upon the notice paper is permitted, if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original notice".
There is then note (r), to which I shall come in a moment. The paragraph proceeds:
If a motion is proposed, which differs materially from the terms of the notice, it can only be made with the consent of the House, or by a new notice.
There then follows note (s).
I should like to start by saying that I am grateful to the Leader of the House for tabling this motion as he has, with time for it to be discussed. It is in accordance with his normal procedure in the House of Commons, which is courteous and effective. My discussion with him would have bean about the membership of the Committee. He will be well aware that that discussion has been held in private between Back Bench and Front Bench Members over the last few months.
Since 7 December the bulk of the second motion that the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to move has been on the Order Paper. I do not know who drafted that. Persons responsible to the Government tell me that it was the Clerks of the House and the Clerks tell me that it was the Government. Ultimately, in a technical sense, it is a Government motion. However, I am reliably informed that Officers of the House had a share in determining its content. That content did not include what it is now attempted to include at the last minute, halfway through the right hon. Gentleman's moving of the motion.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for saying that the matter is not for the House but for the Chair. The

precedents referred to in the note of "Erskine May" point out that it is for the House. The first thing that I should wish to point out is that the editorship of "Erskine May" is in the hands of the Clerk's Department of the House. I accept, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are entitled to quote precedents, but if they are not included in "Erskine May" upon a given date it can hardly be unanticipated that hon. Members or even people outside will query rulings.
This ruling has been dredged up. It has not been put into the authoritative text that we rely upon for our precedents. Therefore, I should like to quote the precedents that are included in "Erskine May" and you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what you have said, and what Mr. Speaker has been advised, may not be the truth of the matter. I am following your advice and taking the most recent precedent quoted.
I shall not go back into the eighteenth century. I am taking the most recent precedent that has been quoted in the most recent edition of "Erskine May". That edition was edited by the Clerk's Department. Different Clerks edit different chapters. The trustees of "Erskine May"—usually the most senior members of the Clerk's Department—are ultimately responsible. We are taking what they have issued as an authoritative text.
Let us begin with the most recent precedent. Under note (s)on the page that you have already quoted, namely, page 367, it says:
ibid. (1895) 33, c. 961".
That means the fourth series of Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 33, c. 961. Towards the bottom it states:
The London and North-Western Railway and their Welsh-speaking Employés".
That is perhaps appropriate for next Monday. It continues:
Mr A. J. Balfour, referring to the following Motion standing on the Paper in the name of Mr Lloyd Geor…".
The motion then follows.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether there is anything since that date that he can bring to my notice. I am not going back to 1895. I shall certainly not change my mind about anything quoted then. The


hon. Gentleman is suggesting that "Erskine May" is incorrect. We are not going into that this evening. If "Erskine May" is incorrect, I shall give an incorrect judgment. Is there anything since that precedent that the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring to my attention? Does he wish to say that this is a material change within the motion?

Mr. English: I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, you must admit that the issue has caused some confusion. The current edition—in the 1970s, not in the 1895s—was published after the precedent that you quoted which was given to you by the Clerk's Department. The current edition of "Erskine May" only gives a precedent as late as 1895 on that particular point.
I am well aware that you are entitled to consider—and the Clerks are entitled to give you—subsequent precedents. Why did they not put them in the document that was published? Why have they suddenly discovered them in this particular context? Perhaps they have suddenly realised that it might be necessary to have a quorum of fewer than 23 for a particular Select Committee. If you do not allow me to quote a precedent that occurs in 1895, you are forbidding me to quote anything.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With respect, I did not say that.

Mr. English: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are saying that I may not quote precedents that occur in the only printed and public document available to most people. I am aware that there are other ways of finding precedents. If you do not allow me to quote that, it will be difficult to challenge the sources of advice to the Chair. Contradictory advice has been given to me. Civil servants, responsible to the Crown, tell me that responsibility lies with the Officers of the House. Officers of the House tell me that the responsibility lies with civil servants, who are responsible to the Crown. That is one of Britain's faults. We cannot always find out—to use a lay phrase—who has "cocked up" the nation. Something has been omitted.
Since 7 December there has been a notice on the Order Paper that did not mention a quorum. That means that every Committee member must turn up.

It cannot be said that it is totally wrong that every member of a Liaison Committee, which is supposed to liaise with all the members of all Committees, should turn up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entering into a different argument. I hope that he appreciates my reason for supporting the ruling of Mr. Speaker. Whatever the precedents were in the past, new precedents come into existence. The Chair can operate only on the most recent. The precedent that I have read to the hon. Gentleman—quoted in "Erskine May"—from the occasion in 1963 when a similar amendment was made to a motion when a time was put at the end of the date, did not constitute a change to the motion.
The words that are sought to be added tonight are not a material part of the motion. That is why the Chair has given that ruling. If the hon. Gentleman would address his mind to the more recent past and say whether there is anything of recent date that would conflict with what I have said, I should be prepared to listen and perhaps change my mind.

Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The most recent precedent was a simple change from 10 o'clock to 11 o'clock, or vice versa. It was a clear error. This may or may not be an error, but it is material to the subject that we are discussing. The Procedure Committee of the last Parliament suggested that there should be a Liaison Committee consisting of representaives of all the permanent Select Committees. That is not a precise phrase. I shall not go into the details of why it is not precise. It is open to interpretation. There have been long discussions between both Front Benches and between both Back Benches, and it was originally suggested—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going wide of making a legal submission on the matter.

Mr. English: I am not doing that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is doing so. I hope that he will direct his remarks to the precedent that I have given.

Mr. English: I am pointing out that the quorum of the Committee is material. The original suggestion was that all 24, or


however many, Select Committees could be represented by a small number, say, 10, 11, or 12. I do not wish to go into the details, because I should be out of order.
During the course of the discussions it was decided and agreed by everyone that the number should be larger. I think that the number on the Paper in the next motionis 23. That is not the matter at issue. The discussions centre almost entirely upon the number who should be present in the Liaison Committee. The number who should be present in order for it to act is its quorum.
On the Order Paper, any notice of motion from 7 December, 8 December and every single day after that until the House adjourned for Christmas and after Christmas from 14 January, up to and including today—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not impressed with the hon. Gentleman's argument. He has tabled an amendment to delete certain words. That amendment has been selected, and it will be possible to have a separate Division on it if the hon. Gentleman so wishes. If the House does not wish to have the words put in, it can have them taken out.
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's remarks up to now have not persuaded me that his argument is so material that the motion falls.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend, not on the appropriateness of including the words but on the point of order that he is presenting.
I understand that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are asking us to address ourselves to the question whether the addition of those words puts the new notice of motion outside the scope of the original notice.
I ask myself what the situation would be if the words that the Leader of the House sought to add were not that the quorum should be six but that it should be 20. There we would have a massive change in the practices of the House with regard to the size of the quorum in relation to the size of the Committee—something upon which the House as a whole

has had no advance notice that it was coming up.
I guess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that additional words of that kind, to many Members at least, would seem to be outside the scope of the original motion. At least, they would think that it was not something that ought to be passed without the House having had advance notice of its coming up.
I mention that only to explain that that is the reason why I have great sympathy with the point that my hon. Friend is making. It would be very unfortunate if a precedent were set tonight, as it were, which could be invoked in different circumstances in the future to allow a gradual erosion of the practice requiring advance notice of motions.
It occurs to me that, given the difficulty that my hon. Friend feels he must raise, there is an alternative way of approaching the matter—if the Leader of the House felt able, instead of seeking permission to move the motion in an alternative form, with the additional words, he were simply to move the motion in its original form and seek your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to move the additional words in the form of a manuscript amendment, turning, as it were, the amendment of my hon. Friend on its head. If that were in order—which I think it is—it would achieve exactly the same object but would do so without raising all the difficulties that my hon. Friend—rightly, I think—feels inclined to press if we proceed on the basis on which we are now engaged.
May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would be prepared, were the Leader of the House willing, to accept a manuscript amendment—which, if you wish, I will move—along those lines, if it were thought to be a way of avoiding the difficulty that we seem to be in?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ought to point out that, as I understand it, it is not possible to amend one's own motion at this particular stage.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In no way do I wish to question your ruling or to depart from it one iota. I support the Chair entirely. However, if the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is so disposed to move this amendment, if it commands the sup-


port of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and if, in your opinion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is for the convenience of the House, I think that I should be the last person who would raise any objection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would be the last person to raise an objection in these circumstances.
If that is for the convenience of the House, I think that that is the procedure that we might adopt. This in no way departs from Mr. Speaker's ruling and my own ruling on this issue.

Mr. English: I accept that this is in accordance with the normal courtesies of the House and is the best way to deal with this matter. However, just for the sake of the record, I should like to put forward one simple thing. It is the utterance of a former Speaker. It is only one sentence, uttered on a similar occasion. It is the second most recent precedent quoted in "Erskine May".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman give the page number?

Mr. English: It is column 219 of the third series, volume 212, of Parliamentary Debates for 1872. It is the second most recent precedent quoted in the most recent edition of "Erskine May", edited by the trustees of "Erskine May", who are the senior Clerks of the House.
The then Mr. Speaker said:
Of course, it was in the power of the House, if it pleased, to entertain that motion
It was the exact opposite of that which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you will forgive my saying so, you have been advised to say.
I think that that power should be retained by the House, because there are occasions when we may wish to deal with matters such as Bills on terrorism or something of which notice has not been given. Mr. Speaker went on to say:
but he was bound to say that it seemed to him, having regard to the practice of the House, that the present Motion, differing as it did so materially from the original one, should not be entertained without notice".
I was trying to make the point that while the House should retain the power of dealing with matters without notice, it

should not do this when there was no reason for so doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to proceed. While I am on this particular point, I should say that it now means that we shall have the original amendment and the manuscript amendment. Is the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) agreeable that I should put the Question on the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English)?

Mr. English: I am sorry, you have confused me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's amendment is the one on which I would put the Question, but the other amendment would be spoken to at the same time and would, of course, be moved afterwards.

Mr. English: I take it that the first thing that would happen would be that the right hon. Gentleman's motion would be moved in the form in which it was on the Order Paper. Then there might be amendments to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. What I was seeking to do was not to rise again at a later stage to ask this question. Obviously, I shall put the Question when the right hon. Gentleman has moved the motion, and then I will ask the hon. Gentleman to move his amendment and the manuscript amendment will be taken with it. Is that procedure acceptable?

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I see whether I understand your proposal correctly? Are you saying that the Leader of the House will move his motion, then my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) will move his printed amendment and thereafter I will move my manuscript amendment, and that we will debate the whole thing together? For my part, I agree entirely.

Mr. English: My problem is that I do not know what my hon. Friend's amendment is going to be, or in what line it is going to occur.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood quite clearly that it was going to be in


terms of what has been put in the motion. There must not be any dispute about that.

Mr. English: I have not seen that amendment, because it is not printed on the Paper. I have only been told about it. I know that somewhere it says that the quorum is a particular number of people. My amendment begins at paragraph (iii).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we are wasting time on this. The manuscript amendment is in paragraph (iv), at the end, insert—
of whom six shall be the quorum".
That is the manuscript amendment that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will be moving.

Mr. English: Now that you have said it is in paragraph (iv), obviously it should be moved after my amendment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I was saying when I was so learnedly interrupted, the motion now before the House represents a further stage in the implementation of the recommendations of the report dealing with the new Select Committee structure.
When the House debated last June the main proposals in that report, I promised to consider further the recommendation in which the Committee had proposed the establishment of a formal Select Committee Liaison Committee, consisting of representatives of the various Select Committees. I said then that I accepted in principle this recommendation, which had been proposed as an amendment to the original motions on that question, and I promised to bring a proposal before the House in due course. This needed to await the establishment of the new Departmental Committees, but I am now in a position to do this.
Of course, as the House will be aware, a Liaison Committee of Select Committee Chairmen has in fact existed since 1967. It has dealt with a number of matters affecting Select Committees, such as arrangements for Select Committee travel, the employment of specialist advisers and the avoidance of unnecessary overlap between the work of the various Select Committees. It has also acted as

a channel of communication between successive Leaders of the House and Select Committees on a wide range of matters. I think that there is general agreement that the Committee has been of considerable benefit. I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), in particular for the work that he did as Chairman of that Committee when he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
But, of course, that Committee never had any formal status and the membership was never formally specified. Accordingly, it was the view of the Procedure Committee that with the expanded Select Committee system that it proposed—which the House has accepted—there was a need for the Committee to be put on a formal basis. That is the purpose of the motion tonight, which is in broad terms.
I imagine that the proposed functions of the new Committee will not in practice differ greatly from those of its predecessor, although, as our Select Committee system has since been expanded, there will no doubt be more matters of common interest to Select Committees to be considered. I must stress that the Committee will have the normal powers of a Select Committee, namely, to call for persons, papers and records, but it is proposed that its functions should be only advisory—for example, in the sense that it will have no formal power to resolve a dispute should it arise between individual Select Committees. That is in accordance with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, and I believe that it is right that individual Select Committees should continue to have full independence, for example, to decide on the subject of their inquiries and to interpret their own terms of reference.
It is proposed that the Committee should also advise the House of Commons Commission where necessary. I know that the House of Commons Commission, of which I am a member, is eagerly looking forward to the appointment of this Committee. There are a number of matters affecting Select Committees, particularly those concerned with their supporting staff and services, which lie within the responsibility of the Commission. The proposed Committee will have an important role in this respect, that of bringing together the views of the


Select Committees and advising the Commission, as required, on such matters.

Mr. George Cunningham: One part of the motion says that the Liaison Committee should give advice relating to the work of Select Committees
as may he sought by the House of Commons Commission".
Those words seem to me to be unduly restrictive. Surely it is not intended that the Liaison Committee should be debarred from volunteering advice to the House of Commons Commission, yet the words seem to mean that.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that is the intention. I think that there is a general intention that the House of Commons Commission will, in general, seek and welcome advice from the Liaison Committee. I believe that one must interpret that in a general and commonsense way. After all, these are arrangements that cannot operate according to the letter of the motion. They must depend on reasonable people on the Committees and on the spirit in which the whole thing is operated.
With regard to membership, the Procedure Committee recommended that the new Select Committee should include one representative, normally the Chairman, from each of the permanent Select Committees, and the motion provides for that. It is proposed that most Select Committees shall be represented by their Chairmen, although in certain cases—for example, the Services Committee—it would seem more appropriate that the Committee should be represented by another Member.
The Procedure Committee also recommended that there should be a number of added members on the Committee. I do not believe that that would be right. In these matters I think that it is far better for the decisions to be taken by those who are engaged in the work of the Select Committee system. For that reason among others, I would advise that the House should reject the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
It gives me no pleasure to recommend the rejection of any amendment that is tabled by the hon. Member, who has devoted so much time and expertise to

the service of the House. That is not always recognised, even on his own side of the House. I am happy to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his great services to the House of Commons. Indeed, I am happy to sit all night if necessary to listen to his counsel, because I always learn something from what he says, whether he is in the twentieth century, the nineteenth century, the eighteenth, the seventeenth century or, sometimes, even further back.
I consider it unnecessary for the Committee of Privileges to be included amongst the Committees represented on this new body. I think that the House will recognise that that Committee is unique and that its requirements, role and practice have little in common with other Select Committees.
The motion provides that representation on the Liaison Committee should be decided by the House and not by the Committees represented, as the hon. Gentleman proposes. I believe that to be in accord with the general practice of the House. A formal House Committee is now proposed. It is right that the House as a whole, from which all the powers of Committees ultimately derive, should determine its membership.
Although it is still early days, I am grateful for the way in which the new Select Committee structure has been launched. The Liaison Committee constitutes what I might call the coping stone to the arch. I am sure that the new structure will strengthen Parliament's scrutiny of the work of Government Departments and that we shall continue as a Government—I want to give this assurance to the House—to carry out our pledge to assist the Committee in every way possible. The Liaison Committee is an essential part of that structure. We have proceeded slowly but surely in these matters. We have endeavoured to meet the anxieties of hon. Members on every point. Everyone's opinion has been taken into account. I am sure that the new Liaison Committee will add to the co-ordinated effectiveness of its work.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West for his continuing interest in these matters—interest which is of an entirely disinterested character.


He is working for the good of the House, which I deeply appreciate.
I beg to move.
That—
(i) a select committee shall be appointed, to be called the Liaison Committee—
(a) to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees, and
(b) to give such advice relating to the work of select committees as may be sought by the House of Commons Commission;
(ii) the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report from time to time;
(iii) unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament;
(iv) the committee may consist of more than fifteen Members;
(v) this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Mr. English: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (iii) and insert,
(iii) the committee shall consist of representatives of the select committees on Agriculture, Defence, Education, Science and Arts, Employment, Energy, Environment, European Legislation, &amp;c., Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, House of Commons (Services), Industry and Trade, Members' Interests, Parliamentary Commissoner for Administration, Privileges, Public Accounts, Scottish Affairs, Selection, Social Services, Sound Broadcasting, Statutory Instruments, Transport, Treasury and Civil Service, Welsh Affairs and of any other select committees which may be appointed for the duration of the Parliament.
(iv) in paragraph (iii) above 'representative' means—
(a) if the chairman of a select committee is not a Minister of the Crown, the chairman of the committee concerned, unless that committee othewise order.
(b) if the chairman of a select committee is a Minister of the Crown, such member of the committee concerned as that committee may, from time to time, determine.
(v) in addition to members of the Liaison Committee determined in accordance with paragraphs (iii) and (iv) above, the committee shall include such other Members as may be necessary to ensure that the committee reflects the compositon of the House.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. May I reciprocate by repeating something that I half said earlier? I am grateful to him for providing all hon. Members with the time on the Floor of the House for this discussion. It is almost becoming a pre-

cedent that on Thursday evenings hon. Members who are interested in these rather esoteric matters discuss them, with the aid of the right hon. Gentleman. In return, I do not think that any hon. Member would wish to take up the time of the House unduly.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the Liaison Committee constitutes a coping stone. My phrase would have been "Keystone", but both show an interest in architecture. The Procedure Committee took the view that the new Select Committees could not work without a Liaison Committee.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we are all aware that an informal committee was set up by the late Dick Crossman when he was Leader of the House. However, a formal Select Committee can tell an informal Committee in polite House of Commons language to go away if it suggests something with which the formal Committee does not agree. On one occasion the previous informal Committee tried to tell a Sub-Committee of which I was Chairman not to do a particular thing. We said that we were going to do it and that it could tell us not to do so by some formal procedure. There was no formal procedure.
However, I do not think that we should go to the opposite extreme. The Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) appreciate that the Liaison Committee should not control the other Select Committees. On that basis they would become Sub-Committees, not Select Committees.
I do not think that it would be disputed that if the Liaison Committee felt, say—to take a purely hypothetical case that the Energy Committee was discussing education in a way that infringed the perquisites of the Education, Science and Arts Committee, it should be within the power of the Liaison Committee to say so publicly. The ultimate decision rests with the House.
That is, I think, the important point. This is why the Liaison Committee should not control other Select Committees but should itself be a Select Committee capable of reporting, just as the other Select Committees are capable of expressing their views to the House and to the public, and so forth.

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware,—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Motions relating to the Liaison Committee may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. English: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, when the proposals for the new departmental Select Committees—originally 12 and, with the addition of Scottish and Welsh Affairs, 14—were put to the House, no suggestion of a Liaison Committee was at that time put to the House. That was perhaps understandable after a general election, with a new Government. The right hon. Gentleman readily and speedily said that he would set up a Liaison Committee, but it has taken rather a long time to do it. As I pointed out earlier in a different context, there has been a motion on the Order Paper since 7 January about a Liaison Committee. That was some time after the right hon. Gentleman's commitment. The motion now appears on the Order Paper of 31 January.
It has, therefore, taken a long time, and part of the reason for that is the basis of my amendment. There has been a great deal of discussion about the exact composition of the Liaison Committee. I must confess to some fault in this regard. Like all the other members of the last Parliament's Procedure Committee, I thought that we were being clear when we said that the Liaison Committee should consist of representatives of the "permanent" Select Committees of the House.
In our minds, Committees dealing with such matters as Cyprus and a wealth tax were not permament, whereas Committees dealing with such matters as Public Accounts, Privileges and Services—which tend to be recreated from Parliament to Parliament—were regarded differently. Of course, we included the ones that we were proposing. Nevertheless, I am afraid that the term "permanent Select Committee" is not a term of art and is open to misinterpretation.
It is fair to say that in the course of discussions that have been held there has been general agreement that Com-

mittees such as the Standing Orders Committee, chaired by the Chairman of Ways and Means, or the Committee dealing with Consolidation Bills, are not such important Select Committees—although technically they are Select Committees—as to need to be included in the Liaison Committee.
Various suggestions were put forward at various stages. The first was that a Liaison Committee should consist of mainly the new Committees and then of other Committees. There was a certain difficulty because the right hon. Gentleman—like most of his predecessors in office—is usually the Chairman of the Services Committee and the Privileges Committee, although there have been exceptions in each case when Leaders of the House did not wish to chair a Services Committee or a Privileges Committee. I am glad to see that one hon. Gentleman, who is not its Chairman, will be representing the Services Committee on the Liaison Committee.
The main purpose of my amendment is to ask why no one is representing the Privileges Committee, which is the oldest and most senior Committee of the House. If anything could be called a permanent Select Committee, that one certainly could. Furthermore, it is relevant and of importance to the function of Select Committees. We all recollect the occasion during the last Parliament when a Select Committee wished to seek evidence from Sir Charles Villiers—the man who it is sometimes difficult to get to commune with others. A lady in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms had to be sent to Sir Charles with a warrant to persuade him, at is were, to give evidence. Questions of privilege were raised at that time. The Procedure Committee decided that no change was necessary in the law of privileges relating to Committees. We made a minor suggestion relating to time on the Floor of the House, but we felt that the Select Committees possessed all the capabilities, under the law of Parliament, which they needed to secure witnesses and to secure evidence.
It is likely that these matters will arise again. Only last week the Employment Committee experienced some difficulty with Mr. O'Brien, the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission. The Committee thought that he was not going to give evidence to it. It is clear that the


Committee could have summoned him. It could have issued an order requiring him to attend. In the event, that has not proved necessary. The Procedure Committee said that it should do no such thing until it had consulted the Cabinet Minister responsible for what are now called "associated public bodies" in the terms of reference of the Select Committees.
It is clear that, if the crunch comes, there will be an occasion when someone does not wish to give evidence to a Select Committee and the Select Committee wants that person to give evidence on some material fact. I should have thought that it would be useful, to say the least, if someone, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), a well recognised Member of the House, interested in the Committee of Privileges, was a member of this Liaison Committee, where the matter could be discussed in private.
The other point at issue occurs when Committees cut across each other. This is not difficult. I recollect a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), saying at an annual lunch of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee that there was no way in which one could get functions nicely and tidily associated inside Departments without cutting across the functions of others. The example that my right hon. Friend quoted was transport. This affects half a dozen Departments at least. Wherever one puts shipping, aircraft, road transport and railways, they will impinge on one another to some extent.
The same is true of Select Committees that are now related departmentally to the Departments of State. Someone must eventually say that although a Committee may be primarily responsible for, say, energy, it does not matter if its members wish to talk about industry matters because that is secondary. Someone engaged on another inquiry primarily related to industry might wish to talk about certain nationalised industries which, technically, came under the purview of the Department of Energy. Someone must ultimately suggest, but not decide, a line of demarcation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cun-

ningham) shakes his head, but he forgets that I began by saying that I agreed with the Leader of the House that the Liaison Committee should not decide these matters. I do not think he suggested that its members should not have a right to their own opinion. It is for the House, if anyone, to decide these matters. But the Liaison Committee should be entitled to say that Committee X is going beyond what is normally accepted and that, in its view, the House should not allow this. It is a free country, and even Select Committees should be allowed to state their opinion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The best analogy that I can offer is Bagehot's "Constitutional Sovereign", that the functions of the Liaison Committee are to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. The other Committees are not agents of the Liaison Committee, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. The other parallel that springs to mind is the view of the Episcopacy taken by the first Vatican Council, contrasted with the view of the Episcopacy taken by the second Vatican Council. In the first Vatican Council the members were regarded as agents of the Pope. The second Vatican Council enunciated the principle of collegiality. These Committees are collegial bodies.

Mr. English: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He was kind enough to say that sometimes my precedents strayed back to the seventeenth century. I was almost on the point of saying that the right hon. Member belongs to a faith that was outlawed by this House in the sixteenth century, which proves that he is a century behind me in certain respects. As he will be well aware, the medieval principle was that all bishops were equal, and at that time the papacy did not have the supremacy that it was granted in the nineteenth century. We even had the use of Sarum in this country as a separate text from which the mass was preached.
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me into fascinating and interesting paths. Because of his intricate mind, he is likely to become a very good Leader of the House, because that is an old-established institution as well. The first mention of Parliament is in a writ in 1236, and one needs an intricate mind of somewhat medieval quality to be Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is doing extremely well.
The first point of substance in my amendment is why the most senior Select Committee of the House is the only one of any importance that is not represented on the Liaison Committee. I accept that there are other minor Committees not represented which probably should not be represented.
Secondly, why should the House always decide who represents a Committee instead of the Committee deciding it? Let me give an illustration. In the last Parliament, through no fault of his own, the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, was ill for six months. The then Sir David Renton, who is now Lord Renton, chaired the Committee after being approved by the Committee and, I suppose, represented it on the unofficial Liaison Committee. However, that was never agreed by the House.
Let us think of such an event in terms of this motion once it has been carried. Let us suppose that the Government Chief Whip or the Deputy Chief Whip came to the House and moved Joe Bloggs off the Liaison Committee and put Jim Smith on. Let us suppose also that somebody queried that. Would the Chief Whip say "Oh, he has just come out of hospital and is not really fit to attend the House of Commons"? That would not be done. The truth is that out of politeness and courtesy to Joe Bloggs that would not be done, and for perhaps six months that Committee would be unrepresented.
I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the exact text of my amendment tonight, but I hope that he will go away and think about how he can deal with such a set of circumstances. If he thinks that such circumstances will never occur in the long lifetime that we hope the Liaison Committee will have, he is misleading himself. It will be grossly unfair if some Committees are unrepresented. I have to bring this up, but there have been circumstances in which former hon. Members, even Ministers of the Crown, have ended up serving long sentences in gaol. Are we suggesting that during that time, because such a person is technically the Chairman of a Committee, that Committee should be unrepresented? I shall not go into the sordid details, but it is apparent that there must be circumstances when the

Chairman is not the only person capable of representing a Committee, and may not even be the most desirable one, even if the Committee for some reason does not wish to change its Chairman at that precise moment. I suggest, therefore, that the Leader of the House should consider what ought to happen if there are circumstances of the type that I have mentioned.
The only other reason for paragraph (v) in the amendment is a simple one, and I would willingly accept an assurance on it from the Leader of the House. When the Procedure Committee referred to "added numbers", it was not thinking of added numbers as some peculiar, unique category of persons. It was simply thinking of the political composition of the Committee.
We did not know in advance that the two sides of the House would agree that seven of the 14 new Committees should have Chairmen from the Government side and that seven should have Chairmen from the Opposition side. In advance, they could have been of any complexion. They could be of a different complexion in the next Parliament. What we were determined to try to ensure was that the Liaison Committee reflected the composition of the House.
I chose those words, as you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Standing Order relating to the selection of Standing Committees. It says that the Selection Committee has to choose the membership so that it reflects
the composition of the House".
That is the traditional phrase.
If the Leader of the House is now saying that what took place through the usual channels on this occasion is what he—as Leader of the Hous and a Minister of the Crown—regards as a precedent for the future, I think that we could all accept that. That is sufficient. The purpose of my paragraph (v) is to illustrate what the Procedure Committee was talking about in relation to "added numbers". It meant that the composition of the Liaison Committee should reflect the political composition of the House.
We thought that that Committee should have a representative, usually, but not always, the Chairman, of each of the permanent Select Committees. By that we meant the most important of them. We did not mean the ad hoc Committees.


We meant that there should be a representative of each of the permanent Select Committees and that, in political terms, they should reflect the composition of the House.
With the benefit of hindsight, I believe that perhaps we did not phrase it correctly. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether he is right to leave off only one of the "permanent" Select Committees—and that the oldest and the most senior of them, the Privileges Committee.
I hope that the Leader of the House will say, on the record, for the benefit of future generations quoting Hansard—as I did earlier—that he believes that the Liaison Committee should always reflect the political composition of the House.
That, I believe, would be satisfactory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), I should say that I think it might be for the convenience of the House to take the manuscript amendment with this amendment.

Mr. George Cunningham: I shall be brief. I presume that at a later stage I shall formally have to move the manuscript amendment.
A question that was raised in an intervention between the Leader of the House and myself does, I think, merit another word. This motion seems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said, to have been hurriedly drafted. I put it to the Leader of the House that more care should be used in future.
The motion as it stands says quite specifically that the Liaison Committee is
to give such advice
amongst other things
as may be sought by the House of Commons Commission".
Since a number of points have arisen tonight on which we might need to make changes in the future, may I ask the Leader of the House to put that in his memory bank as something that ought to be tidied away out of the text at some later stage? As the right hon. Gentleman says, in practice we want the Liaison Committee not to restrict itself to answer-

ing questions when the questions are put but to volunteer advice to the House of Commons Commission without necessarily having any request from the House of Commons.
The proposal that the Leader of the House has put before the House is not the proposal that is described in the report of the Procedure Committee, of which some of us here were members. I do not make any particular criticism of that, because there can be second thoughts, and there can be better thoughts. It is the case, as anyone who reads the proceedings at the end of our report will see, that we did not have any vote on any paragraph in that section of our report. Therefore, it may well be that we did not give every sentence in it the intense consideration that perhaps we gave to some other parts of the report.
The Select Committees have, I think, made a good start. Considering the delay in being set up, they have made quite a swift start with their work. But some of their work has been impeded by matters on which the Liaison Committee can help. I am thinking not only of the rather obvious question of travel but of staff and rooms, and particularly staffing. The new Select Committees, if they are to do the job that was intended for them, will need a different kind of staff from that which has traditionally served Select Committees of this House.
In the past the Select Committees have depended upon the procedural Clerks of the House andon specialist advisers who are normally retained on a short term and ad hoc per diem basis. Many members of the new Select Committees feel that they will not be able to do their work properly unless they have a kind of permanent staff recruited and on contract, perhaps for a couple of years, perhaps for a Parliament and perhaps notionally on a permanent basis. Devising arrangements that can be put to the House of Commons Commission for approving a system like that is something for which we need a Liaison Committee. One of the important losses through not having it over the last few months is that no such proposals have been possible to be put forward to the House of Commons Commission.
Then there is the matter of rooms. Here I take the opportunity to ask the


Leader of the House to do everything that he can to hurry up the process of increasing the number of rooms available within this building to the Select Committees. We have on the Upper Committee Corridor five rooms which have been in the process of gestation for a very, very long time now. I find it hard to understand why not one of those rooms has yet come into operation. That difficulty is severely in the way of the working of the Select Committees. Indeed, some of us suspected that some of the delay in getting them set up last autumn might have been related to the difficulty of physically accommodating them if they were set up.
I should like the Leader of the House to do all that he can to speed up the process of getting those rooms ready and to make sure that the current promise that they will be ready by about Easter is realised.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend has referred to the rooms on the Upper Committee Corridor. It is obvious that the electrical work is infinitely more complicated than anybody had imagined. Re-doing a building such as this is a major operation. It seems that those who have been working on the Upper Committee Corridor have been working hard enough, heaven knows.

Mr. Cunningham: Yes, I dare say, but different administrative arrangements need to be made so that it is possible to bring five rooms into operation in this the legislature of the nation in something less than nine months. If the situation there is so complex that it needs the putting on to the job of more people, or better people, or higher people, or a few kicks to be delivered, or whatever, to the people in charge of the work, let it be done. It really cannot be beyond the possibilities of this nation, can it, to produce five rooms in the course of nine months? Of course, the answer to that question is "Yes, it can be beyond the capacity." If anybody wants an illustration of the British disease, there it is up on the Upper Committee Corridor, rampant.
Anyway, let me get back to some other matter on the motion. I concur with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West that the Leader of the House would have done

better to have constructed the Committee in the form of representatives of the new Select Committees without naming them.
We said in our report that the Liaison Committee should consist of representatives, and that objective is more effectively achieved without the disadvantages and difficulties that could ensue—which were mentioned by my hon. Friend—if the idea of representation is put into the motion.
The Leader of the House said that that would be against the practices and the traditions of the House. It would not. The new Select Committees—some of them—are permitted to have a Joint Sub-Committee to deal with nationalised industries. We have not laid down who will be on the Joint Sub-Committee. We have left that to the different Select Committees that have an interest in any one nationalised industry. We have said that it is up to the Committees to appoint their representatives to that Joint Sub-Committee.
There is also the fact that in a certain sense we are departing from the practice of the House by putting names on the Order Paper of people who will continue to be members of the Liaison Committee, irrespective of whether they continue to be Chairman of the Committees of which they were originally appointed.
It will be necessary in the future always to amend this motion whenever a Select Committee changes its Chairman. A Select Committee does not need the approval of the House to change its Chairman. We would not normally have to pass any motion to secure that change. But now we shall have to pass a motion to take the consequential act towards the composition of the Liaison Committee. And that takes no account of the valid point made by my hon. Friend about what happens when the Chairman of a Select Committee is ill—not for a day or two, but for a prolonged period.
I have no strong views one way or the other about the inclusion of a representative of the Committee of Privileges, but, as the Select Committee of Privileges is the only important Committee that is left out, it seems unecessary and invidious to leave it out, and we all might come back to that issue later.
However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's reason for wanting the Committee of Privileges included. If Select Committees have difficulty in obtaining papers and getting summoned witnesses to appear, their correct course is to make a special report to the House and to process the matter in that way rather than to discuss that with a representative of the Select Committee of Privileges in the Liaison Committee. That difficulty is too weighty a matter to be decided in the Liaison Committee. It belongs here, on the Floor of the House.

Mr. English: I do not wish to delay the House, and on these occasions most of the people here are those who are familiar with the papers that we are discussing. Therefore, repeating them would be rather tedious.
I hope that when the Liaison Committee is set up it will consider a variety of matters, such as the power to set up Sub-Committees, the power of Sub-Committees to report their proceedings and, amongst other things, how a Committee, which is in a given circumstance—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and I have outlined—should raise the matter before the House by special report or otherwise.
I do not want to go into the details of that at this stage, but what my hon. Friend is saying is exactly what I did not wish to happen. I agree with him. I do not want the Liaison Committee to discuss an individual case. I want it to consider the principle, in the abstract, as it were, when passions are not being aroused perhaps because the Home Affairs Committee is trying to summon the Minister responsible for immigration, or whatever it might be. I thought that my hon. Friend and I were at one on this, but I think that the Liaison Committee should consider the general principles.

Mr. George Cunningham: I feel that we are not at one. All the specific matters that my hon. Friend mentions are matters that are properly the concern of the Liaison Committee and the Privileges Committee. If there is to be further discussion of the need for a change in practice or rule of the powers of Select Committees to summon people and papers to it, that is for the Pro-

cedure Committee, when we have one again, and not for the Privileges Committee. The Privileges Committee is best almost restricted to consideration of individual cases. It should not try to take the place of the Procedure Committee of the House.
With those reservations, we very much welcome the presence of these motions on the Order Paper. The Liaison Committee will be an important conclusion to the reforms which the Leader of the House has brought forward so rapidly. We pay tribute to him for that. It will assist Select Committees in the important job that the House has laid upon them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I briefly reply to some of the points that have been raised, and also express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) for his generous words? It is a joint effort, and we are all united in a common purpose—to improve the procedures of this House and make it a more effective instrument of its traditional purposes.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) raised two questions. The first was why the Privileges Committee was not included on the Liaison Committee. I can only say that it is a question of qualitative judgment. I do not say that one can demonstrate one way or the other that it should or should not be. The argument that I put forward is that it is a sui generis Committee, different in nature from the others, and, therefore, that is sufficient reason for not including it.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the House should decide the membership of the Committee. I believe that this is in accordance with the practice of the House. When there is doubt, it is always a sound rule of practice to go back to the House, which is the fount of all authority for Committees.
The drafting of the motion was criticised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. He particularly drew attention to the words "as may be sought". Those words were carefully chosen, but I wanted to give them a wide interpretation and not a restrictive one. There must be the freest co-operation between the Liaison Committee and the Commission, and, indeed, between the Liaison Committee and myself.
I am anxiously awaiting the appointment of the Liaison Committee. That will enable further progress to be made on a number of important matters.
I am well aware of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman regarding travel and staffing. The Commission is dealing with the question of travel for Committees. No one will be more relieved than the Commission when the burden of that can be shared with the Liaison Committee. It is most invidious to make decisions on these matters, distinguishing between different groups of Members. I shall be glad when I do not have to participate in those decisions.

Mr. English: As long as he is Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will have to participate in decisions, even if only as a member of the Commission and the Minister of the Crown responsible for this House.
Much more important than the question of staff is simply the question of money, which includes staff. A Committee of this House, which, strangely enough, is not one of the new 14, only the other day was wondering whether it could afford to get an outside consultant to advise it on a particular issue. That should never be the case.
We are now independent, in the sense that the Commission presents the Estimates. It is as impartial a body as can be constructed, but it needs advice from somebody linking all the Select Committees on what is necessary. I hope that one of the principal functions of the Liaison Committee will be to do just that—to link those Select Committees to the authority putting the Estimates to the House, upon which, of course, the right hon. Gentleman sits.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not suggesting that I shall suddenly disappear from the scene. That is not my intention. I am happy to be on the stage. I am also happy that there should be other parts being played by those who are well qualified to do so.
I do not wish to have too much responsibility in this matter. It is a very delicate one. This is precisely where the Liaison Committee, after a time, will have experience. It will develop a feel and an intuition about these matters which will be very useful.
These Committees must have adequate staff. If it is necessary for hon. Members to travel, they should be able to do so. At the same time, we have to take these decisions against the background of a very grim economic situation and a general reduction in Government expenditure. We must balance the matter. There must be no extravagance.

Mr. George Cunningham: Government expenditure, of course.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whatever Government had been in office, there would not be a lot of money around at the moment. We must take that into account.
I am not in favour of setting up Committees and then preventing them from doing their necessary works. Most foreign travel, in any case, is rather unpleasant in my experience. I would much rather stay at home. The call of duty occasionally calls one forth from one's nest.
With regard to rooms, they are a continual problem to me, not only for these Select Committees but for everyone in the House. Only when we get an adequate Parliament building, at some time, will the problem be solved. At present we are doing what we can. I am in constant communication, through the usual channels, with those who are satisfied, dissatisfied, hopeful or despairing. I have followed with interest the construction going on upstairs. I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in his tribute to the electrical system. From what one sees, it is amazing that it has ever worked at all, let alone that it continues to work now. I am convinced by the survey that I have made that those rooms will be in use soon. Certainly we shall look into that.
Finally, let us proceed one step at a time, and on a provisional basis. We are moving into new territory. We must not be dogmatic about it. We must start somewhere. If these arrangements do not work or prove to be unsatisfactory, we must revise them. I am clear about this and about other measures that we are taking.
I am sure that I shall have the benefit of the advice of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West at all times—for which I am indeed grateful, because he has been a great help in getting these reforms forward. I recognise it. I wish that he was


more recognised by the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. George Cunningham: The Leader of the House has made that remark twice. I assure him that we on the Labour Benches appreciate my hon. Friend enormously. We are more exposed to the benefits of his advice than the Leader of the House is, and that is why we appreciate it even more than he does.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am delighted. Let there be some tanglible recognition—perhaps the suggestion of membership of the Privy Council for the hon. Gentleman might not come amiss. I leave that constructive thought, which seems to have been well received below the Gangway but received with less rapture above the Gangway. There are other claimants, of course, as I recognise.
In the light of all that I have been saying, I hope that the hon. Member will not press his opposition to a Division.

Mr. English: For many centuries every Member of this House has been familiar with the phrase timeo Danaos dona ferentis. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman means well, but I would not wish to follow in the course he has pursued. However, he has been very courteous and, as I said, my amendment was in the nature of a probing amendment. I hope that he will reconsider the question of composition and so forth, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Manuscript amendment made: in paragraph (iv), at end insert
'of whom Six shall be the quorum.'—[Mr. George Cunningham.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to,

Ordered,

That—
(i) a select committee shall be appointed, to be called the Liaison Committee—
(a) to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees, and
(b) to give such advice relating to the work of select committees as may be sought by the House of Commons Commission;
(ii) the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report from time to time;

(iii) unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament;
(iv) the committee may consist of more than fifteen Members, of whom Six shall be the quorum.

Ordered,

That this be a Standing Order of the House.

Ordered,

That Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Joel Barnett, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Paul Dean, Mr. Donald Dewar, Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann, Mr. Edward du Cann, Sir William Elliott, Mr. John Golding, Mr. Philip Holland, Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Sir John Langford-Holt, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Sir Graham Page, Mr. Christopher Price, Sir Anthony Royle, Mrs. Renée Short, and Mr. Julius Silverman be members of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

SCOTTISH HORTICULTURAL INSTITUTES (AMALGAMATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian): The debate about the amalgamation of the Scottish Plant Breeding Station and the Scottish Horticultural Research Institute is of great moment to my constituents. I shall argue that the work force has presented a powerful case for the retention of the breeding station in that area.
The Government have failed in their attempts to answer the case. The Secretary of State for Scotland admitted in a written answer of 19 December that the amalgamation would be phased over a period of years.
It is not too late for the Government to change their minds. In the interests of all concerned I hope that, as a minimum, the Minister will announce that a fresh look will be taken. With respect to the Secretary of State, his answer of 19 December does not answer the case put by the staff against the amalgamation. He owed at least that much to them. It involves as many as 124 jobs and 74 members of the institute will be affected by the amalgamation. That is no small matter.
The Secretary of State hung his hat high in reaching that decision. It was based on a report of a working party that was set up in July 1978. Anticipating


the Minister's reply, I concede that that report was set up during the previous Labour Administration. However, it is important to put on record the five points that were made by the staff side through the Institution of Professional Civil Servants against the relocation.
The first point dealt with the whole question of research. The staff argued that insufficient attention had been given to present and future research programmes at the two institutes. They should be reviewed before any reorganisation, as that will determine the resources required. The Scottish Plant Breeding Station staff feel that closure will destroy the station's highly advanced breeding and scientific programme. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Scotland, does not suggest that that programme is not viable.
The review should also assess the place of all existing members of staff in the programme in order to allay the danger of staff losses or wasted resources. The IPCS estimates that capital and incidental expenditure involved in combining the two institutes will be £3 million. That is double the amount mentioned in the report. That will lead to net additional public expenditure of £2·4 million. That level of expenditure is unjustifiable when one considers the expenditure cuts that are imposed on all areas of public services. It contrasts unfavourably with the IPCS estimate of £1 million net additional public expenditure, or £1·5 million direct capital costs for separate development of the two institutes.
Among the other omissions, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Scotland, fails to justify its extraordinary assumption that the SPBS must treble its Pentlandfield accommodation merely to maintain the present research programme.
Thirdly, there is loss of revenue. The IPCS estimates suggest disruption of plant breeding programmes caused by the move, which will cost the economy £1·4 million for each year's delay in the production of new varieties.
Those are formidable points, but no answers were given to them in the answer to me of 19 December. Indeed, the Department has never sought to give answers. If there is a five-year delay, which is probable, it could cost upwards of £7 million. There may be more

serious effects on the Scottish seed potato trade arising from heavy import penetration by foreign varieties.
These projections are based solely on loss of new barley and potato varieties and exclude the disruption of brassica breeding. Loss of revenue and royalty income from State-bred varieties could amount to a further £1 million. Against those figures must be set the independent cost-benefit analysis of SPBS work, which is estimated at costs of £9·7 million and benefits of £29·8 million between 1950 and the end of the century.
Fourthly, there is the question of savings. The IPCS can foresee no savings, either in land rents or staff travel expenditure, as a result of amalgamation.
Fifthly, there are the working arrangements. Many of the country's other leading research institutes, such as the Woburn experimental farm and Hill Farm research organisation, also run successful experimental farms at a distance from their main buildings. The Murrays farm at the SPBS is still in a state of development and has yet to reachits full potential. Performance could be further improved by making more land available to the SPBS locally through sharing arrangements.
SPBS staff have never been consulted about optimising new working arrangements, but they should now be given the opportunity. From an industrial relations point of view, it is an absolute disgrace that a decision has been taken without that point being borne in mind.
I wanted to put those five points on the record. I now want to deal with the relevance of the submission, which I believe to be important. I said that the Secretary of State hung his hat fairly high in the working party report. That report does not establish a case for the closing of the SPBS. The decision must be seen as being made on other grounds, which the official side is reluctant to reveal.
One possible explanation is that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Scotland, has invested large sums of money in the SHRI over the last 10 years, despite the fact that the crops it works are of only minor economic importance. At the same time, the SPBS has been starved of investment. The plan therefore conceals mismanagement on the part of the Department of Agriculture and


Fisheries, Scotland, in developing the wrong institute by moving the important arable work to the SHRI, which has been charged to an unjustifiable extent.
On the question of costs, the staff side estimates that it will cost £3 million to move the Plant Breeding Station, at a time of severe curtailment of public expenditure. That expenditure is quite unjustified. The money could be put to far better use elsewhere, in agricultural rerearch or development.
There is a fear that the official side will embark on the move and then discover that it has been allocated insufficient funds, is restricted by cash limits, or will have the allocation reduced by another round of public spending cuts. The result will be that the move will be under-financed, inadequate facilities will be provided, and many more staff will be made redundant.
The staff side estimates that the continued separate development of the Plant Breeding Station and the SHRI would cost £1 million and £0·5 million respectively. In fact, the SHRI has already been over-developed relative to the value of the programmes. The £1 million for development allocated to the Plant Breeding Station—the PBI, as it is described at Cambridge—could be reduced, not necessarily by moving anybody but just by integrating the work.
We already work with the potato breeders at the PBI, but they have announced that if we move from the Plant Breeding Station to Dundee this arrangement must be broken, because it will be too far for them to travel to the new seed-producing farm. Thus, the move will damage potato breeding by interfering with the existing beneficial collaboration, and it will help us in no way.
On the working party's composition, I must stress that my constituents feel, and the staff side feels, that this was entirely unsatisfactory. Three of its members were associated with farming, but they never were or claimed to be research scientists. Their position on Government bodies does not qualify them to make informed judgments about the organisation of research. One was a civil servant, who has now retired, fulfilling the policy of the Ministry of Agritulture, Fisheries and Food. One was an academic with little knowledge of farm-

ing or Scotland, and he too has now retired. Only Professor Robertson, as principal of the East of Scotland college of agriculture and, incidentally professor of agriculture at Edinburgh university, had the depth of expertise, experience and judgment to make a fully informed appraisal of what organisational changes were needed, and he disagreed with the others.
The subsequent approval of the report by the governing bodies and the ARC is almost irrelevant because members of the working party sat on all of them. They could not therefore have been independent in their judgment.
The staff at the Plant Breeding Station at this moment have no guarantee of continued employment. The non-mobile staff, who comprise about two-thirds of the total, are especially vulnerable. The view of the official side that they can be found alternative employment at other nearby institutes ignores the fact that because of spending cuts those institutes are trying to reduce their staffing levels and will be recruiting very few staff members in the next few years.
I suggest that the first priority for the Scottish Plant Breeding Station certainly is good management. The staff side, I have to inform the house, distrusts the director and believe he was appointed to engineer the closure. I must inform the Minister that morale is at rock bottom at present, and I hope that the Minister will agree that the case presented—and it is its case—by the work force is substantial and that the case for amalgamation has not been made by a long chalk.
I must say—I do not say it with any personal animosity—that I welcome the fact that the Minister is present, but the matter is rather confusing. I never knew that the hon. Gentleman—I do not say this to denigrate him—was the Minister for agricultural affairs in Scotland. He may not agree with the case that I have put, but my understanding is that it is his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who is mainly dealing with agricultural affairs. He may decide that I have not impressed him tonight by the case that I have put forward, but he cannot reject it, because it would be most unfair to my constituents if the responsible ministers did not have the opportunity of hearing the case that I have advanced on my constituents' behalf.


That case should be put to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the Minister were to answer "No", it would be a serious violation of parliamentary privilege, for my constituents would be suffering a rebuff of a sort that I have never experienced in the House of Commons.
I hope that the Minister will at a very minimum give me a guarantee that he will consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the case that I have submitted on behalf of my constituents, and inform me later of his right hon. Friend's decision.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) raised a number of points, including the expression of polite dissatisfaction that I should be replying to the Adjournment debate and not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Eadie: Not at all.

Mr. Fletcher: That is how I construed the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am responding inoffensively, in the manner in which he made his remarks.
My right hon. Friend has discussed the matter with me and, indeed, the Minister who is essentially responsible for agriculture in Scotland is my noble Friend the Minister of State, in another place. He has personally conducted a number of consultations with many of the parties involved in this amalgamation and in laying plans for it. The hon. Gentleman is therefore not having to deal tonight with a mere Under-Secretary of State. I hope that he will accept from me that the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have both given very serious consideration to this matter. The remarks that I make in reply to the hon. Gentleman are a result of consultations and discussions that I haw had with my right hon. Friend and with my noble Friend.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister has missed the point, with respect. I said that I did not wish in any way to denigrate the hon. Gentleman. If I appeared to be offensive, I certainly did not wish to be. He must be seized of the point that I am making, which is that although he may be replying to the debate on behalf of the Secre-

tary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have not heard the case I have submitted tonight, and they are entitled to hear that case before a decision is made. That is the only point I am putting.

Mr. Fletcher: If they have not heard it they can read about it in the Official Report. I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will indeed hear about what has been said. If any point that I make tonight is not in concert with their views, I am sure that they will not only tell the hon. Gentleman but will certainly tell me.
I shall try to answer some of the hon. Gentleman's points, but perhaps I may first give an outline of the decision that has been made to merge these two important establishments. The decision was made by my right hon. Friend in the first instance. It was not, as the hon. Gentleman realises, as part of the Government's programme of expenditure cuts, because the whole business was set in train by the previous Government. It is a measure that we believe will give much needed impetus to crop research and development in Scotland.
The Plant Breeding Station at Pentlandfield and the Horticultural Research Institute at Mylnefield are two of the eight agricultural research institutes in Scotland supported by grants from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
Towards the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman questioned the membership of the working party, and I do not think it is going too far to say that he threw scorn on its members and their qualifications to reach this decision. He must know that in 1978 his right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) set up a working party to examine the arrangements for the commissioning and the organisation of crop research and plant breeding at these institutes. I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, and, if he has any complaints on the constitution of the working party, he should address them to his right hon. Friend and not to my right hon. Friend.
My understanding is that it had become clear that programmes of development and capital investment would be required,


particularly at the Scottish Plant Breeding Station. I know that the staff dispute that. But capital expenditure was required at the station, and, taking that into account, it was felt that there was real room for improvement in the use of research resources in Scotland for the benefit of agriculture and horticulture.
While the station achieved notable success in the 1950s and the early 1960s with the production of new potato varieties, it has been less successful in recent years. We are convinced that there would be greater prospects for overall success if the efforts of the plant breeders could be backed by the greater depth of science and research capability which already exists at Mylnefield.
There were also obvious problems associated with the 13 miles distance between the Pentlandfield station and its experimental farm, the Murrays. Indeed, the difficulty about the Murrays all along has been that the soil and climatic conditions are unsuitable for plant breeding. The hon. Member for Midlothian suggested that the Murrays might be extended easily, but those two basic problems exist.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the working party took account of views from the staffunions concerned, from representatives of line management at both institutes, and from both governing bodies. They also had available to them advice from the Agricultural Research Council, with which the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries works, closely in the oversight of agricultural research in Scotland.
The report of the working party was submitted to the previous Administration in December 1978 and made available to every member of staff at both institutes. No decision was taken, however, before the general election.
The Agricultural Research Council was formally consulted and agreed with the recommendations of the working party. My noble Friend the Minister of State discussed the recommendations with repsentatives of the staff side of the Agricultural Research Service. He also met the chairman of the two governing bodies, who are strongly in favour of the amalgamation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided to accept the working party's proposals. We believe

that the evidence for the decision is overwhelming.

Mr. Eadie: The professor of agriculture at Edinburgh University, who was a member of the working party, had reservations.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, the professor had reservations, but he went along with the view of the working party—which was unanimous. He did not file a minority report or take any action of that kind.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend not agree that one advantage of the merger will be that it will create full-time and part-time jobs in Mylnefield, near Dundee—an area where there is high unemployment?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. It would be helpful to the Dundee area, which is a special development area and a problem area in Scotland. That must be recognised.
The need for improvement of crop research in Scotland is the motive force behind the amalgamation. But amalgamation of the institutes is also the more economical course. In that respect I disagree with the hon. Member for Midlothian, and with the arguments put forward by the staff side. There are figures to support that, and I hope to be able to give them.
The cost of capital work which would have been needed at Pentlandfield and its associate farm, as estimated by the Scottish Plant Breeding Station director, is in the £3 million-£4 million range. Capital works would also been needed at Mylnefield costing about £600,000.
I can understand the feelings of the staff at Pentlandfield who have settled in and near Edinburgh and who may not relish a move. That is understandable. Throughout there has been consultation with staff and their representatives. Change is often difficult to accept even when, as in this case, it is intended to open up new opportunities for collaborative scientific work.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the laboratory, the glasshouse and the land resources at Dundee will be equivalent to what is available now?

Mr. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point which I know is important to the staff—both those already at Mylnefield and those who are moving there. It is very much in the minds of those involved to try to provide buildings which are satisfactory and acceptable to the staff. Consultations at present taking place include that important point.
It is the hope of my right hon. Friend and myself that constructive consultative arrangements, dealing with the planning for the new buildings, will persuade the Pentlandfield staff that they are, in fact, participating in a development programme. This will open up new avenues for their expertise as researchers and plant breeders, and will lead to results which will be of benefit to horticulture and agriculture, not only of Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
It is very difficult for those who are faced with the move. Most of us representing Scottish constituencies argue the case, quite rightly, for decentralisation of Government Departments, bodies and agencies from London to Scotland. Surely we must recognise that within Scotland there must be a case from time to time for some of the Government bodies and agencies, 95 per cent. of which are located in Edinburgh, to be decentralised to other parts of Scotland.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I have only two or three minutes left.
It has been suggested that we have a fresh look. I cannot say that we shall look again at a decision which has been made in principle, but as it is being carried out over a number of years, consultations will continue and the interests of the staff at Pentlandfield will continue to be given high priority.
There are two sides to the staff case. Only today I received a telegram from some of the staff at Pentlandfield who are enthusiastic about the move. I believe that other hon. Members also received telegrams.
There will be some disruption of the work at Pentlandfield, of course. This is inevitable in a move of this kind. But it will be minimal. As the amalgamation will take place over a number of years, it should be possible to minimise the disruption that might take place.

Mr. Eadie: None of the staff has told me of being happy about the move.

Mr. Fletcher: I have the telegram here, and I believe that other hon. Members also received telegrams. I see that the right hon. Gentleman for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) has indicated that he received one. These were totally unsolicited. The hon. Member must accept that there are two sides to the staff case. I hope he will agree that this amalgamation is very much in the interests of Scottish agricultural research and as such it deserves to be supported.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister is deceiving the House.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not.

Mr. Eadie: Mr. Eadie rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): There is only one minute left of this debate.

Mr. Fletcher: I am not suggesting that these people are not on the management side. But the fact remains that they are affected by the move and they are on the staff of Pentlandfield. Any suggestion to the contrary is quite wrong.
Let us bear in mind that there are employment opportunities for people who are mobile. All the mobile staff will be given the opportunity to move to Mylnefield, and many of those at present categorised as non-mobile will be given opportunities for employment prospects. As this is taking place over a number of years, it would be quite wrong to be pessimistic about the employment prospects of those who may decide that they do not wish to move, but wish to stay at Pentlandfield.
The hon. Member is incorrect to suggest that this has been done in any heavy-handed manner, and that considerations of the staff at Pentlandfield have been ignored. I have made it clear that one understands the feelings of the staff who will be disrupted. However, the negotiations and consultations that have already taken place show that the personal considerations of the people there have been taken into account. This augurs well for the future consultations that will be required before the amalgamation can be completed. The motive behind this is


to improve agricultural research and development in Scotland. That is—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY

SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.